Національний/на консультант/ка з децентралізованої тематичної оцінки програм з відновлення та розвитку

UNDP supports countries and communities in building resilience to a wide range of shocks and crises, including conflict, disasters and epidemics. In Ukraine, UNDP has been implementing programming focused on cross-sectoral, area-based approach to conflict prevention, peacebuilding, disaster risk reduction and crisis response since 2015. The interventions developed to address the impact of the armed conflict in East of Ukraine, which started in 2014, have evolved to support the most affected communities after the full-scale invasion of 2022. UNDP’s area-based programming has been focused on building resilience and human security in a holistic way, encompassing local governance and support to decentralization, economic recovery, social cohesion and community security.  

Area-based development (ABD) is an approach which offers an integrated, participatory and inclusive methodology to advance sustainable human development in specific geographically defined target areas that face distinctive complex challenges or vulnerabilities. Globally, UNDP has been applying and developing the ABD approach with increasing methodological rigour since the 2000s. Experience has shown that it makes most sense “in post-conflict environments, where the sheer complexities of the challenges called for comprehensive, integrated multi-agency, multi-sector and multi-level responses and above-all flexibility to adequately respond to sometimes rapidly changing conditions.” 

In response to the crisis of 2014, the European Union, the United Nations and the World Bank Group supported the Government of Ukraine to conduct a joint “Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment (RPA)” which was finalized in February 2015.  Following the recommendations of RPA UNDP Ukraine developed Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme (hereinafter, interchangeably, “the Programme”, “UN RPP” or “RPP”; ID: 00102396; January 2015 to December 2023), as one example of UNDP’s area-based recovery and development programming and the unifying framework for multiple projects funded by several international partners. 

The programme was originally intended to strengthen community security and social cohesion, support the economic recovery and reconstruction of critical infrastructure of conflict-affected communities, and further the implementation of decentralisation and healthcare reforms in government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Whereas an approach of individual projects was originally followed due to expediency requirements, a coherent programmatic framework has been established for the RPP in 2016. 

The ongoing political and social developments around the conflict and adjustments of the Programme priorities to the flux environment require thorough analysis of the Programme implementation. The Programme was revised and aligned with the United Nations Partnership Framework (UNPF) 2018 – 2022, which in turn has been aligned with national priorities and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. 

The war in Ukraine, which escalated Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, is having a direct and highly negative effect on social cohesion, resilience, livelihoods, community security, and rule of law throughout the country. Recognizing the need to urgently address reconstruction and economic recovery, the Government of Ukraine has requested technical assistance and financial support from the international community. 

UNDP launched its Resilience Building and Recovery (RBR) framework for Ukraine on 11 April 2022 to immediately respond to the development and humanitarian challenges. The overall objective is to preserve development gains in Ukraine, mitigating risks of descent into a governance and service delivery crisis, embedding activities for recovery from the onset of the humanitarian effort, and facilitating a swift return to development pathways and processes for national attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

The UN RPP accounted for part of UNDP’s offer through the RBR framework. Although the UN RPP was initially designed to respond to and mitigate the causes and effects of the armed conflict in the east of Ukraine, after the large-scale Russian invasion began on 24 February 2022, the Programme expanded its activities to the most war-affected oblasts of Ukraine, located primarily in the east and south of the country. 

Based on previous experience and to support strengthened resilience and early recovery in war-affected communities in the selected target areas of Ukraine, UNDP and the European Union – a long-term partner (including for UNDP’s programme in the east) – have launched the “EU4Recovery – Empowering Communities in Ukraine” (EU4Recovery) project, which will ensure a multiplier effect by further expanding the key interventions mentioned above. 

The RPP is comprised of the following three substantive components, roughly matching these intermediate goals:

• Component 1: Economic Recovery and Restoration of Critical Infrastructure
• Component 2: Local Governance and Decentralization Reform
• Component 3: Community Security and Social Cohesion 

Whereas EU4Recovery takes forward past successful EU-supported interventions within the last two components. 

Overall, both RPP and EU4Recovery (in the following ‘the Programme’) follow a multi-sectoral programme-based approach. National ownership must be ensured at all levels of the programme, from the outcomes and outputs to activities and sub-activities. RPP included joint programming with FAO, UN Women and UNFPA and it was continued with UN Women and UNFPA within EU4Recovery. The programme is coordinated with other UN agencies and other international assistance providers, particularly in the support to local governance and early recovery. 

With a full-fledged field presence in eastern Ukraine, the Programme has been implemented through an area-based methodology to ensure a flexible and adaptive response to the needs of target areas. For RPP this was primarily in the government-controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. Some activities under the RPP are also implemented in other oblasts: Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk and Zhytomyr. At the central level of government, the RPP has developed a close working relationship with the Ministry of Temporarily Occupied Territories. The Programme is implemented in close consultation and partnership with national, regional and local government authorities, civil society, the business community and development partners. 

The EU-funded ‘EU Support to the East of Ukraine: Recovery, Peacebuilding and Governance’ (ENI/2017/040-554; August 2018 – September 2023), and later the ‘EU4Recovery – Empowering Communities in Ukraine’ (NDICI-GEO-NEAR/2022/436-306; October 2022 – ongoing and ending September 2024) projects have been the largest and some of the most important in the implementation of UNDP’s approach to area-based recovery and development programming. They have also been instrumental in delivering on the key outputs of the EU Emergency Support Programme for Ukraine, via an area-based approach which strengthens the capacity of Ukrainian government institutions and civil society to address immediate needs of the Ukrainian population, and which provides ongoing support to the country’s resilience and recovery. 

The major objectives of the assignment are to conduct the comprehensive thematic evaluation of UNDP’s interventions with a focus on i. evaluating the strategic value and results of adopting an area-based approach to enhancing resilience and the responsiveness of the interventions to the needs identified at the design stage, ii. providing the evidence base to inform the design of further UNDP interventions in the area of subnational recovery; iii. Gather the key lessons learned and best practices from field implementation, to be used for internal reflection, and for external communication and advocacy.

The evaluation will include:    

• A comprehensive final evaluation of the implementation of the United Nations Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme (UN RPP)[1], to assess the extent to which programme objectives have been achieved, summarize the lessons learned and contribute to enhancement of future programming, policymaking, overall organizational learning of UNDP in Ukraine and its partner agencies.
• A Mid Term Review of the Enhanced citizen engagement for improved community security, strengthened social fabric and increased stability in areas affected by the war in Ukraine to assess the progress towards the overall and specific goals. The project was launched as part of the UN RPP umbrella.
• A Mid-Term Review of the EU4Recovery – Empowering Communities in Ukraine project to assess the progress towards the overall and specific goals. The Project was launched outside of the UN RPP umbrella.

The thematic evaluation will cover gender equality, women empowerment through the human rights-based approach. The findings and recommendations of the evaluation will be used for improving the design and implementation of related development initiatives of UNDP in Ukraine.

The evaluation will seek to assess:

1. To what extent the programme has contributed to solve the needs and problems identified in the design phase.
2. To what extent the programme was efficiently implemented and delivered quality outputs and outcomes, against what was originally planned or subsequently officially revised.
3. To what extent the programme has attained development results to the targeted population, beneficiaries, participants – whether individuals, communities, institutions, etc., therefore cross three of its main areas of focus i. Economic recovery and Critical Infrastructure; ii Local Governance and Decentralization Reform; iii. Community Security and Social Cohesion. 

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

The national consultant to be engaged under this process will work in a team with an International Consultant and  are expected to work in tandem to perform the analysis of the implementation of ABD approach in Ukraine’s context and related project documents, thematic priorities, allocated resources and make the assessment of Programme achievements against initial objectives taking into consideration, for example, the recommendations of the Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme and EU4Recovery Board Meetings.

The key product expected is a comprehensive evaluation report (up to 50 pages without annexes, single spacing, Myriad Pro font, size 11) that includes, but is not limited to the following components:

• Executive summary (up to 4 pages)
• Introduction
• Evaluation scope and objectives
• Evaluation approach and methods
• Development context and programme background
• Data analysis and key findings and conclusions
• Recommendations and lessons learned for the future interventions
• Annexes: TOR, list of field visits and their agendas, list of people interviewed, documents reviewed, etc.

While the evaluation will focus on the ABD approach, it will also encompass the evaluation of RPP, covering the entire duration of the programme, although with the emphasis on the period from November 2017 (mid-term evaluation[2]) to December 2023 (end of the programme), and the geographical target area: originally focused on Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts (regions), and Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts for some activities, and after the full scale invasion by the Russian Federation in February 2022, a larger area of most war-affected oblasts in the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine (ref. Image 1 above). The mid-term evaluation of EU4Recovery will cover the duration since the launch in October 2022 and the geographical areas prioritized (ref. EU4Recovery Inception Report).

The evaluation and review will cover programme design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of results and will engage all key programme stakeholders – benefitting communities, local self-government bodies, relevant ministries and institutions of the Government of Ukraine, project donors, UNDP, UN agencies, civil society organisations, local and national level infrastructures for peace, academia and other actors.

The evaluation and review will assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency of the ABD approach, as well as related programme and projects; explore the key factors that have contributed to the achieving or not achieving of the intended results; and determine the extent to which the approach/programme/projects are contributing to improving community security and social cohesion; addressing crosscutting issues of gender equality and women’s empowerment and human rights; and forging partnership at different levels, including with government, donors, UN agencies, and communities.

This evaluation will follow the following review criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. All of evaluation and review’s key products will be prepared in line with the standards outline in UNDP Evaluation Guidelines[3]. More specifically, it will cover, but not be limited to, the following areas and preliminary questions:

1. RELEVANCE

• How relevant were the overall design and approaches to UNDP mandate, the priorities of Country Programme Document 2018-2023, UNPF 2018-2022, UN Transitional Framework? How relevant were the approach/programme/projects to the needs and priorities of target groups and the Government?
• Did the results contribute to the overall priorities and strategies of the Government of Ukraine?
• To what extent are the objectives of the programme design (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and their indicators) and its theory of change logical and coherent? Did the Programme contribute to the outcome and outputs of the CPD? To what extent the programme has attained development results to the targeted population, beneficiaries, participants -whether individuals, communities, institutions, etc., therefore across three of its main areas of focus i. Economic recovery and Critical Infrastructure; ii Local Governance and Decentralization Reform iii Community Security and Social Cohesion.
• To what extent was the Programme relevant to address the needs of vulnerable groups and gender issues (both at Programme and stakeholder’s level)? To what extent did the Programme contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the human rights-based approach? What measures can be taken to improve the relevance of similar interventions in the future to better capture the needs of the vulnerable groups and gender issues?
• What are the relevant lessons that emerged from the implementation of UNDP support? To what extent and how learning/feedback from different activities/ outputs were/ are being considered in the subsequent process of planning and implementation? Are/ were the context, problem, needs and priorities well analysed and reviewed during the initiation of new outputs?
• Did the Programme remain relevant considering the changing environment, not least leading up to, during and immediately after the events which unfolded on 24 February 2022? How was the Programme able to adapt to the situation, while taking into consideration the risks/challenges mitigation strategy? Was there a need to reformulate the project design and the project results framework given changes in the country and operational context?
• To what extent were UNDP and its UN partners, UN Women and UNFPA, able to ensure relevant lessons learned informed the design of the EU4Recovery project and guided the first year of implementation?
• Have the UNDP interventions been responsive and adjusting to the conflict context?

1. COHERENCE

• To what extent did RPP benefit from the synergies and interlinkages with other interventions, not least the EU4Recovery project, carried out by the UNDP in Ukraine together with UN Women and UNFPA, and vice versa?
• To what extent is the Programme consistent with the relevant international norms and standards to which UNDP adheres?
• To what extent are the interventions consistent with other actors’ interventions in the same context?
• To what extent has RPP/ EU4Recovery projects facilitated effective coordination between humanitarian and developmental initiatives to support the Government’s agenda for the return of IDPs and refugees?
• How well does RPP/ EU4Recovery align with and leverage the nexus approach in ensuring a seamless transition from humanitarian aid to development, especially given the evolving needs of returning IDPs and refugees in Ukraine? 

1. EFFECTIVENESS

• To what extent did the Programme contribute to the country programme outcomes and output results, the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan, and national development priorities? What have been the key results and changes attained for men, women and vulnerable groups?
• To what extent were the Programme activities delivered effectively in terms of quality and timing?
• Were the planned objectives and outcomes achieved? What was the degree of achievement of objectives across the initial target regions and partner municipalities (around and beyond the areas of Kramatorsk and Sievierodonetsk), and after 24 February 2022 the wider area in eastern and southern parts of Ukraine? Were the outputs achieved in a timely manner?
• How did the project/programme meet the specific interests and needs of women and men beneficiaries and most marginalized groups? What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended outputs and outcomes (contributing factors and constraints)?
• Where there any unintended or unexpected results achieved by the Programme? What were the supporting factors?
• Assess the level of Programme activities implementation and their monitoring in close coordination and/or partnership with national, regional and local governments as well as other UN agencies (UN Women, UNFPA, and FAO) target communities, international organizations, national and international NGOs. What are the main lessons learned from the partnership strategies?
• How can the Programme build on or expand the achievements? To what extend the specific Programme outputs can be easily adapted/ replicated/ upscaled in other regions of the country?
• In which areas does the Programme have the greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the programme build on or expand these achievements?
• In which areas does the Programme have the fewest achievements? What have been the constraining factors and why? How can or could they be overcome?
• What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in achieving the programme objectives?
• To what extent are programme management and implementation participatory, and is this participation of men, women and vulnerable groups contributing towards achievement of the programme objectives?
• To what extent has the Programme contributed to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the realization of human rights?
• How effective has the Programme been in enhancing the capacity of stakeholders?
• How did the programme apply a participatory based approach in its implementation DNA?
• Ownership in the process: To what extent have the target population and participants made the programme their own, taking an active role in it? What modes of participation have taken place? To what extent have public/private national resources and/or counterparts been mobilized to contribute to the programme’s objective and produce results and impacts? 

1. EFFICIENCY

• To what extent was the programme management structure efficient in generating the expected results?
• To what extent have the UNDP programme implementation strategy and execution been efficient and cost-effective? Has UNDP conducted thorough risk assessments to identify and mitigate the potential risks to programme success?
• Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise, etc.) been allocated strategically to achieve the relevant outputs and outcomes?
• Was Programme implementation delayed, and, if it was, did that affect cost-effectiveness of the results?
• To what extent were the resource mobilization efforts successful? Was funding sufficient for achievement of results?
• Was there a synergy between UNDP initiatives/projects that contributed to reducing costs while supporting achievement of results?
• Was/is the programme management, coordination and monitoring efficient and appropriate for generating the expected results? To what extent does M&E system provide management with a stream of data, disaggregated by sex, that allows to learn and adjust implementation accordingly?
• What were the criteria for the selection of partners (‘responsible parties’ as well in a broader sense) and were they efficient?
• What can additionally be done to improve the efficiency of the approach in related/successor programmes and projects, such as the EU4Recovery project?
• How does the programme utilize existing local capacities of right-bearers and duty-holders to achieve its outcomes? 

1. SUSTAINABILITY

• Define the areas, which produced the most sustainable results, and the most promising areas requiring further support during future intervention. Which areas of support have been less relevant/less successful, and why so?
• To what extent did the results (impact, if any, and outcomes) contribute to the overall recovery of areas targeted and how likely is it that results are sustainable and will continue after the specific projects ends?
• Is stakeholders’ engagement likely to continue, be scaled up, replicated or institutionalised after the intervention? Define which of the platforms, networks, relationships development have the highest potential for further scaling up and/or replication.
• What possible priority areas of engagement can be identified and what recommendations can be offered for the ongoing EU4Recovery project and/or similar recovery and area-based development interventions in the future?
• What are the risks and potential events beyond the control of the EU4Recovery project that could adversely affect the achievement and sustainability of results including potential mitigation strategies for UNDP?
• To what extent do national partners have the institutional capacities, including sustainability strategies, in place to sustain the outcome-level results?
• To what extent are policy and regulatory frameworks in place that will support the continuation of benefits for men and women in the future?
• How the exit strategy and sustainability can be strengthened? 

IMPACT

• Did the Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme and EU4Recovery, contribute to long-term social, economic, technical changes for individuals, civil society groups and institutions?
• What difference did the intervention(s) make to the beneficiaries?
• To what extent has the Programme been able to help to support the Leave No-One Behind agenda and populations considered vulnerable (those below the poverty line, ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups)?
• To what extent has the Programme promoted positive changes for women, persons with disabilities and representatives of marginalized groups? Were there any unintended effects?
• Has the Programme assisted in building capable, accountable and responsive local governance in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, as long-term partners, as well as other oblasts and hromadas selected, and in line with the decentralization reform agenda, that prioritizes and effectively addresses the needs of conflict-affected communities and empowers women and vulnerable groups?
• Were community security and social cohesion in target communities enhanced as a result of the Programme interventions? 

4. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The scope of the evaluation will cover all activities undertaken in the framework of the Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme (RPP), as well as the EU4Recovery project. The evaluation team will compare planned outputs of the Programme, as well as CPD outcome results and any other UNDP Ukraine programmatic frameworks such as the Resilience Building and Recovery Framework, to the actual outputs and assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the Programme objectives.

The evaluation must provide evidence based and transparently obtained information that is credible, reliable and useful. The evaluation team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with CSOs, government counterparts at different levels, international partner organisations, UNDP Country Office and programme team. The evaluation should apply conflict-sensitive approach and rely on context analysis, taking into consideration the relevant indicators related to the level of trust in the government, trust among groups, level of participation of key stakeholders, etc. 

An evaluation of performance will be carried out against expectations set out in various programme/projects Logical Framework/Results Framework, which provides performance and impact indicators for programme implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The evaluation team will also identify lessons learned and best practices which could be applied to future and other on-going UNDP interventions. 

The conclusions should be comprehensive and balanced, and highlight the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and outcomes. They should be well substantiated by the evidence and logically connected to the evaluation findings. They should respond to key evaluation questions and provide insights into the identification of and/or solutions to important problems or issues pertinent to beneficiaries and UNDP. The evaluation team should provide a proposed design, methodology of evaluation (methods, approaches to be used, evaluation criterion for assessment of each component to be proposed), detailed work plan and report structure to UNDP prior to the start of fieldwork; these documents and the list of beneficiaries and partners should be agreed with ID-RPB. 

The evaluation team is expected to develop and present a detailed statement of evaluations methods/approaches in the inception report to show how each objective, evaluation criterion will be assessed. It is suggested that the evaluation team applies a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to draw valid and evidence-based findings and practical recommendations. 

The final evaluation and mid-term review methodology shall include, as a minimum, the following elements / sources of information:

• Desk review of RPP and EU4Recovery primary documentation: the project documents, progress reports, board meeting minutes, financial reports, M&E frameworks, work plans and other relevant written records;
• Review of specific products including datasets, publications, audiovisual materials, technical packages, consultancies reports and other materials and reports;
• surveys, polls, focus group discussions with the beneficiaries of UNDP support;
• Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions;
• Interviews and meetings with key stakeholders, to provide in-depth briefing on the approach/programme/projects, its results, context of partnerships with different stakeholders and other issues:
  • UNDP programme and project personnel, consultants;
  • Partner UN agencies (UN Women, UNFPA, FAO), RCO and other UNCT members;
  • Development partners, humanitarian actors and international community;
• National government institutions (Ministry for Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territories, Ministry of Social Policy, Ministry of Economy, Ministry for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry for Veterans’ Affairs, Ministry of Education and Science, State Employment Service, Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, etc.;
  • Sub-national authorities in target regions;

Selected direct beneficiaries, including civil society organisations at the local and regional level with due focus on most marginalized groups particularly women. For each of these interviews, the evaluation team should first develop and present his/her suggestions for the content and format of the interview forms (e.g. interview guides defining the structure of future interviews and key proposed questions to be asked) that will be applied to capture the information required, as well as the method to be used in administering them and tabulating the results. 

The evaluation should apply gender and human rights lens.

Data and evidence will be triangulated with multiple sources to address evaluation questions. Final decisions about the specific design and methods for the evaluation and review will be made through consultation among the Programme, Country Office, the evaluation team and key stakeholders about what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives as well as answer the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data. 

Debriefing session will be arranged for discussing the evaluation findings, results and recommendations. The consultant is also expected to analyse all relevant information sources and use interview and focus group discussions as means to collect relevant data for the evaluation, using a mixed-method approach that can capture qualitative and quantitative dimensions. The methodology and techniques (such as a case study, sample survey, etc.) to be used in the evaluation should be described in detail in the inception report and in the final evaluation report and should be linked to each of the evaluation questions in the Evaluation Matrix. When applicable, a reference should be made regarding the criteria used to select the geographic areas.

The consultant will interact with RPP and CO staff to receive any clarifications and guidance that may be needed. He/she will also receive all necessary informational and logistical support from the Programme. On a day-to-day basis, the consultant’s work will be coordinated with the UNDP Evaluation Manager (quality assurer), IDRPB Team Leader, the Programme Manager and/or team appointed by them. The satisfactory completion of each of the deliverables shall be subject to the endorsement of the UNDP CO Strategic Planning, Partnerships and RBM Team Lead (evaluation manager, quality assurer). 

The consultant will inform UNDP of any problems, issues or delays arising during the implementation of the assignment and take necessary steps to address them. 

The detailed schedule of the evaluation and the length of the assignment will be discussed with the evaluation team prior to the assignment. The estimated duration of the assignment is up to 50 working days (during the period of September – December 2024). 

The final version of the comprehensive report with UNDP comments taken into consideration should be submitted to UNDP by 30 December 2024. The report must be as free as possible of technical jargon in order to ensure accessibility to its wide and diverse audience and should be prepared in English. 

All reports and results are to be submitted to the UNDP in electronic form (*.docx, *.xlsx, *.pptx, and *.pdf or other formats accepted by UNDP).   

5. EVALUATION PRODUCTS (KEY DELIVERABLES) 

The National Consultant should provide the following deliverables:

6. PROPOSED PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Payment will be based upon satisfactory completion of deliverables upon review and acceptance by UNDP. UNDP will pay the negotiated amount in two (2) tranches as per delivery of tasks outlined above, according to the following payment schedule:

• first payment will be issued upon the completion of Deliverable 1 and Deliverable 2 (40 % of the total contract amount);
• second payment will be issued upon completion of Deliverable 3, Deliverable 4 and Deliverable 5 (60 % of the total contract amount).

7. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

A team of two (2) independent consultants will conduct the evaluation: one (1) International Consultant (with experience and practice of participation in projects and evaluations in other regions of the world) and one (1) National Consultant which will work in close cooperation with and under the guidance of the international consultant.

In cooperation with the International Consultant, the National Consultant will interact with UNDP Programme and CO Staff to receive any clarifications and guidance that may be needed. UNDP Programme and CO Staff will provide the Consultants with administrative, logistical support, as well as required data and documentation. UNDP Programme Analyst will connect the Consultants with the wider programme unit, senior management and key evaluation stakeholders, the UNDP Evaluation Manager (Team Leader, Strategic Planning, Partnerships and RBM) reviews and approves inception reports including evaluation questions and methodologies, reviews and comments on draft evaluation reports, circulate draft and final evaluation reports, collect and consolidate comments on draft evaluation reports and share with the Consultants for finalization of the evaluation report. The satisfactory completion of each of the deliverables shall be subject to the endorsement of the UNDP Evaluation Manager (Team Leader, Strategic Planning, Partnerships and RBM).

Ethics

This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’^[4]. The Consultants must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The Consultants should respect differences and accord equal spaces and dignity regardless of interviewees’ gender, race, sexual preference, ethnicity, ability, or other markers of identity. The Consultants must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

Copyright

All information and products produced by the Consultants under this assignment will remain property of UNDP Ukraine.

8. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS

• Education: University degree in Monitoring and Evaluation, Social Sciences, Management, Public Administration, International Development or related fields (at least bachelor’s degree).
• Relevant professional experience: At least three (3) years of work experience in the field of recovery and peacebuilding, public administration, governance, and international development, including participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation.
• Experience in evaluation: At least two (2) accomplished complex evaluations of Projects where the candidate was the author or co-author especially in recovery and peacebuilding, governance, and international development, with proven understanding of gender aspects (reference to previously prepared programme/project evaluation reports to be provided).
• Proven experience in conducting interviews with diverse stakeholders, including the development of tailored interview concepts and formats, ensuring effective engagement and comprehensive data collection, at least one (1)year
• Experience in delivering presentations and effectively communicating evaluation findings to diverse audiences, ensuring clarity and understanding.
• Languages proficiency: Excellent knowledge of Ukrainian and/or Russian as well as at least working level of English; fluency in English will be considered as an asset.

The evaluation team must be independent from any organizations that have been involved in designing, executing or advising any aspect of the intervention that is the subject of the evaluation.

9. DOCUMENTS TO BE INCLUDED WHEN SUBMITTING THE PROPOSALS

Applicants shall submit the following documents:

1. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL

Lump sum contract

The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount, and payment terms around specific and measurable (qualitative and quantitative) deliverables (i.e. whether payments fall in instalments or upon completion of the entire contract). Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the ToRs. In order to assist the requesting unit in the comparison of financial proposals, the financial proposal will include a breakdown of this lump sum amount (including a number of anticipated working days).

Travel costs are applicable. In the case of travel to partner oblasts and field offices, if security situation allows, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses, should be agreed upon, between UNDP and Consultant prior to travel and will be reimbursed. BSAFE course must be successfully completed before the commencement of travel. Individual Consultant is responsible for ensuring they have vaccinations/inoculations when travelling to certain countries, as designated by the UN Medical Director. A Consultant is required to comply with the UN security directives set forth under https://dss.un.org/dssweb/

1. EVALUATION CRITERIA

[1] Under the scope of the UN RPP evaluation fall 29 projects. The full list is included in Annex 1 to these TORs.

[2] Mid-Term Evaluation of the Recovery and Peacebuilding Programme in Ukraine; https://erc.undp.org/evaluation/documents/detail/11041

[3] UNDP Evaluation Guideline; http://web.undp.org/evaluation/guideline/

[4] UNEG, ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’, June 2008. Available at http://www.uneval.org/search/index.jsp?q=ethical+guidelines.

DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS September 25, 2024.

If you wish to apply for this or other positions, please visit and apply:

Procurement Notices – UNDP-UKR-00964 – 569_IC_decentralized Thematic Evaluation of UNDPs area-based RDP.

Qualified women are strongly encouraged to apply.