Вакансія: National Consultant to conduct a Thematic Evaluation of UNDP’s interventions in the field of safeguarding and promoting Human Security (Social sphere)

Since 24 February 2022, the ongoing war in Ukraine has already resulted in significant loss of life, devastating destruction of infrastructure and unprecedented displacement internally and towards neighbouring countries. The scope and scale of damage to critical infrastructure caused by the conflict are devastating in Ukraine. Public service provision continues to be constrained across the country – water, electricity, heating, gas and emergency health and social services remains under severe pressure. The economic impact of the war is dire. The complex humanitarian, development, and peace (HDP) challenges emerging in Ukraine underscore the importance of programming that responds to the multiple dimensions of the crisis – human security crisis.

The primary objective of the aforementioned two projects (hereinafter, Human Security Projects) is to enhance human security in Ukraine by responding to the multidimensional crisis caused by the war. The Human Security Projects are unique funding source for enabling UNDP to work on the HDP nexus to create multi-sector, comprehensive, and integrated solutions to address humanitarian emergencies with sustainability at the core for the challenges to the survival, livelihood and dignity of the people in Ukraine. Inspired by the recent UNDP special report on “New threats to human security in the Anthropocene: demanding greater solidarity”, this projects were designed to contribute to human security both at macro and micro levels. At macro level, the project contributes to economic recovery in the country as well as global food security, and at micro level through supporting and leveraging the resilience of individuals, communities, and institutions in the country to provide immediate life-saving assistance while protecting core government functions and public service delivery. The project is fully aligned with UNDP’s comprehensive Resilience Building and Recovery Programme for Ukraine, which was launched in April 2022 as the organization’s results based umbrella and programmatic support offer to preserve development gains in Ukraine as fully as possible, mitigating risks of descent into a governance and service delivery crisis, embedding activities for recovery from the onset of the
humanitarian effort, and facilitate a swift return to development pathways and processes for national attainment of the SDGs. The projects are also directly aligned with key priorities enshrined in the UNDP Ukraine Country Programme Document 2018-2022 (CPD), as well as relevant strategic documents of the United Nations in Ukraine in support of the Government of Ukraine’s response to the economic and social impact of Russia’s invasion and war on Ukraine.

The Human Security projects operates on five core components:

1. Promotion of human security in Ukraine through responding to the multidimensional crisis caused by the war (1000157)

• Output 1: Essential infrastructure restored and equipment and materials provided to
  secure life-line basic services and winterization supports
• Output 2: Enhanced capacities of mine action authorities and emergency service
  responders to protect the civilian population from explosive ordnance and
  environmental hazards
• Output 3: Enhanced capacities of local authorities to clear debris and dangerous
  damage structures, as well as collect and safely dispose solid waste
• Output 4: Strengthened government system for crisis management, early recovery and
  basic service delivery for vulnerable people
• Output 5: Capacities of national and local state and non-state actors enabled for enhanced community security, human rights and access to justice for all people, with a focus on IDPs and vulnerable groups

These five outputs are designed to respond to three principles of human security: 1) freedom from fear (threats to the safety of people); 2) freedom from want (threats to basic needs); and 3) freedom to live in dignity (access to services and opportunities) through integrated and multisector interventions to address the root causes of vulnerabilities and prevention against the emerging risks and threats derived from the ongoing conflict in the country.
During the nearly 18 months of implementation, the JSB Human Security Project has provided 1)extensive support to strengthen the resilence of the energy system and energy access inemergencies including two 330kV 200MVA auto-tansformers, provision of 2,300+ generatorsand power stations to 23 Oblasts in Ukraine were completed. Meanwhile 2) Non-Technical Survey (NTS) was conducted in 963 locations in Kyiv and Chernihiv oblasts, the capacity of SESU has been strengthened by providing equipment, such as explosive ordnance detectors and demolition exploders, to 95 pyrotechnic teams, Specialized Explosive Ordnance Risk Education (EORE) has been provided, and a total of 3,207 individuals have improved knowledge and skills of mine victimassistance, while 21 organizations were selected for grant support to strengthen their capacitiesof providing mine victim assistance. Furthermore, 3) 110,588m3 of debris, including hazardous waste like asbestos, was removed from 11 hromadas in Chernihiv and Kyiv oblasts. Equipment
and heavy machines to enhance capacities on debris and waste management were provided to 15 hromada in the two oblasts.
Under output 4) capacity building on crisis management expertise such as crisis response, digital development, anti-corruption and countering disinformation was provided to both central andsubnational government bodies. training sessions and surveys were conducted in the three target communities (Lutsk, Khmelnytskyi, and Kalush) as pilot for assessing the state of the anticorruption system and UNDP extensively supported the Ministry of Restoration in conducting various training sessions and capacity building support. In addition, strategic communications training and media literacy initiatives were conducted in collaboration with the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy and the Centre for Strategic Communications and Information Security, aiming to enhance the capacity of communications officers and promote media literacy.
Further strengthening of human security was provided through output 5) where training was conducted for the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) and Free Legal Aid (FLA) System to effectively engage with war-affected populations, leading to consultations for nearly 233,000 clients (at least 58% female) conducted by the trained officials. On the service provider front, 1,864 individuals (73% female) received capacity building in the areas of FLA System and
Ombudsperson. 413 prosecutors, law-enforcement personnel and other justice actors (48% female) from 24 oblasts passed specialized courses and now have relevant knowledge and skills to ensure effective documentation and processing of human rights violations, war crime cases, including CRSV, and reparations for property and other rights and documenting evidence of CRSVcases. Furthermore, various equipment, including rapid DNA mobile laboratories and crime scene investigation kits, was provided to National Police to enhance the investigative capacities of
forensic units, including those tasked with investigating war crimes.
The achievement made in this project has demonstrated the effective delivery during challenging times of war, but also warranted a timely evaluation of the project. UNDP will analyse the lessons learned from the JSB Human Security Project, conduct consultations with the key government stakeholders on strategic priorities in the area of strengthening human security.
The main Project stakeholders are (including but not limited to):

•  Ministry of Energy of Ukraine;
• Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine;
• Ministry for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development of Ukraine;
• Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine;
• Ministry of Justice of Ukraine;
• Legal Aid Provision Coordination Centre;
• Vulnerable groups (IDPs, elderly people, war veterans etc);
• The Government of Japan (donor)

2. Emergency Grant Aid for humanitarian assistance in Ukraine and neighbouring countries: Emergency EO clearance and debris removal to ensure safe human mobility and access to essential goods and services for humanitarian supports (131415, 131393)

• Output 1: Coordination with relevant City crisis coordination and emergency management, as well as humanitarian actors, to identify key humanitarian access requirements
• Output 2: Liaison with the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU) for Explosive Ordnance (EO) survey and clearance requirements for the identified locations
• Output 3: Facilitating safe access with the demolition of any unstable/hazardous structures and removal of debris, military waste and impediments as well as any environmental threats
• Output 4: Maintaining cleared areas to facilitate continued safe access.

Under Output 1, In consultation with the Kyiv oblast military administration, UNDP and the Kyiv oblast military administration decided on the project implementation in Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel (including Moshchun) and Makariv. A working relationship was established with the municipal military administrations of Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel and Makariv, in identifying the destroyed buildings for debris clearing works. At the end of the project, UNDP in collaboration with municipal administration had identified and supported 440 plots/locations, including 381 buildings.

Under Output 2, Within the project area of operations about 17km of roads and accessways to damaged structures were verified on the presence of EO. A total area of 190,000m2 of damaged buildings including courtyards area was released through EO survey and clearance. In addition, 11 pyrotechnic units of SESU were equipped.

Under Output 3, UNDP debris team, together with the municipal representatives, made the assessments of the damaged buildings and developed the term of reference for tender. The works in these four municipalities (Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel and Makariv) were formed into 4 (four) lots, with one lot for each municipality based on the prioritised lists prepared by the councils of the four municipalities. The lists consisted of various structures from mostly single-story private houses, and 3 – 4 story public buildings up to 11-storey apartments. UNDP also assigned a supervision engineering company to supervise the implementation of the work to ensure safety and timely execution of the works.
Under Output 4, the UNDP Debris team ensured regular inspections to gether with the local government counterparts. No major issues with trafficability were reported by local authorities during the project period.

Human-rights based approach (HRBA)
The HRBA framework is an essential part of the Projects’ theory of change. The projects are designed to respond to three principles of human security 1) freedom from fear (threats to the safety of people); 2) freedom from want (threats to basic needs); and 3) freedom to live in dignity (access to services and opportunities) through integrated and multi-sector interventions to address the root causes of vulnerabilities and prevention against the emerging risks and threats derived from the ongoing conflict in the country. Human security and human rights are intricately connected concepts, both seeking to enhance the well-being and dignity of individuals. Human security furthermore aims to safeguard people from diverse threats, emphasizing the importance of protecting individuals and communities rather than just states. The interlinkages are evident in their shared emphasis on foundational principles, individual empowerment, freedom from fear and want, common values, international cooperation, and proactive prevention and response measures. The integration of human security and human rights is vital for enhancing safety during the war while promoting enhanced rights and freedoms for the people of Ukraine.
Gender equality and Women, Peace and Security (WPS) nexus
The Projects strive to ensure that women and men are equally represented in all interventions, by providing equal and affordable access to critical public services (electricity, heating and water) and enhancing their safety and security (mine action and debris clearance). The projects saw a strong possibility of integrating the concept of WPS, which encourage participation, training and contribution of women in enhancing peace and security. Therefore, it is of our interest to receive recommendations from this evaluation on how can we integrate the concept of WPS in the future programming.
The projects further sought to strengthen the capacities of national and local state and non-state actors enabled for enhanced community security, human rights and access to justice for all people, with a focus on IDPs and vulnerable groups. Conflict can result in higher levels of gender-based violence against women and girls. Two thirds of women in Ukraine had experienced some form of Gender based violence (GBV) in their lifetime before the escalation of the conflict. The beginning of the full-scale war in February 2022 and the deterioration of the security context has sharply increased the risk of multiple forms of violence. The outputs of the project related to strengthening national crisis management, basic service delivery, community security and access to justice will therefore be critical components to improve women’s empowerment by improving their safety and security and raising awareness and improving their legal literacy in issues related to war, family and labour issues, to enable them to claim their rights.
The gender balance is measured through the gathering (when possible) of sex-disaggregated data at activity and at results levels. Under Promotion of human security in Ukraine through responding to the multidimensional crisis caused by the war (1000157), the project has provided risk education for mine and explosive ordnance awareness to women, girls, boys and men residing within area of demolition works in accordance with their different vulnerabilities, roles and needs, and promoting behavioural change, under output 2. The project has also provided studies of impact on the war on youth through support to the national programme “Vidnova:UA, seeking to strengthen the inclusion of young women and men in the crisis response and recovery under output 4. Gender equality is a key component under output 5 by strengthening national capacities for effective documentation and processing of human rights violations, war crime cases and armed conflict-related property loss and claims.
More detailed background and context information, logical framework and theory of change, monitoring plans, specific targets and indicators are available in the Project Documents. The results achieved as per the logical framework, quarterly project progress reports and other project documentation, will be provided.
3. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSIGNMENT In line with the Financing Agreement with the Government of Japan, signed on 08 December 2022, Project Document and Workplan, UNDP seeks to conduct a Thematic Evaluation (TE). The nature of TE is an assessment of UNDP performance in areas that are critical to ensuring sustained contribution to development results, in terms of safeguarding and promoting human security during the ongoing full-scale war in Ukraine. TE shall take into account cross-cutting themes that have significance beyond a particular project or initiative, across several outcomes or results areas in the country (e.g. HDPN, WPS nexus, LNOB approach). This TE will mainly focus on the topic of human security, and its outcome should largely be a management tool to provide UNDP and stakeholders with an account of development results achieved that will inform recommendations and guide further Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions. The main objective of the assignment is to conduct the thematic evaluation of the Human Security Projects to support further learnings, accountability and transparency of development interventions in the area of Human Security through an assessment of the actual results, the uniqueness, added value and significance of the Project’s interventions. The evaluation shall therefore provide evidence on the achievements and results of the projects, including identification of factors that have hindered or facilitated the success of the project.

purpose of the evaluation is three-fold and aims (1) to analyse the implementation of the Projects from April 2022-July 2023 (131415, 131393), and January 2023-June 2024 (1000157), their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence in addressing challenges of human security in Ukraine, particularly in consideration of the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation; (2) to draw the lessons learnt, including viable suggestions on operational directions, which could be sharpened and further enhanced in the follow-up Projects; (3) to provide recommendations and inform the development of further Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions accounting for the ongoing war and its impact on governmental partners as well as for the need of further UNDP’s assistance. This will not only support accountability, inform decision-making and allow UNDP and the Project Board to better manage development results but also pave the way towards the development of the follow-up phase of Japan’s and UNDP’s intervention. The scope of the TE will cover activities undertaken by the Projects from their start until the end. Given the nature of the Evaluation, the International Consultant will be conducting the evaluation with the support from two National Consultants to: a) Assess Project progress towards the achievement of the objectives, expected outputs and outcomes as specified in the Project Documents following a number of parameters set under evaluation questions in the sections below; compare planned outputs of the Projects to actual outputs; evaluate the relevance of the objectives, expected outputs and outcomes set accounting for the impact of ongoing war; assess signs of Project success or failure with the goal of identifying the necessary changes to be made in order to calibrate Project activities towards meeting emerging needs of government partners by the end of the Projects; review the Project strategy and its risks to sustainability; b) Review project’s theory of change progress indicators and targets set in a logical framework in terms of their relevance and feasibility in accounting for the country context and provide feedback on achieving the targets; c) Draw the lessons learned that can both improve the sustainability of benefits from the Project achieved before the onset of full-scale war and tailor UNDP’s response to the needs and priorities of Project beneficiaries arising, in the human security perspectives, due to the war; d) Provide clear recommendations for adaptive management to guide further Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions and inform the development of the Project’s follow-up phase upon consulting with Project beneficiaries. The National Consultants will play a crucial role in supporting the International Consultant, who leads the evaluation team. This includes, but is not limited to, in-person data collection, field visits, and engagement with local stakeholders to ensure accurate and comprehensive data gathering. The National Consultants’ deep understanding of the local context will be essential in capturing nuanced insights, contributing to preliminary reports, and ensuring the evaluation findings accurately reflect on-the-ground realities.

In addition to data collection, the National Consultants will support the development of key knowledge products, including the Inception Report, Final Report, and the final presentation. They will assist in drafting and refining these documents, ensuring that local perspectives are well-represented and that all relevant findings are comprehensively integrated. Their contributions will be vital in producing high-quality deliverables that meet UNDP’s standards and
effectively communicate the evaluation outcomes to stakeholders.
This TE will assess Project performance against the review criteria, as outlined in the UNDP уvaluation Guidelines, based on OECD-DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and coherence. The International Consultant should address how the Project applied the human rights-based approach and gender mainstreaming in development efforts. The evaluation will be carried out from home-based and from Kyiv, Ukraine between 1 September – 15 December 2024. The TE should be conducted in accordance with the guidance,
rules and procedures established by UNDP and as reflected in the UNDP Evaluation Policy.

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

When suggesting a methodology for conducting the evaluation, the evaluators must utilize an evaluation matrix to translate the theory of change and its established framework of direct and indirect results into a comprehensive set of measurable categories for evaluative analysis. This matrix should be designed in a way that effectively encompasses the dimensions of gender equality and human rights.
The below presents a set of preliminary questions that the evaluators are suggested to address in their proposed approach, following the OECD DAC evaluation criteria. The final list of evaluation questions and tools is to be proposed by the International Consultant in coordination with the two National Consultants and agreed with UNDP in an Inception report. All evaluation questions should mainstream gender and give focus on WPS nexus, and will be screened by UNDP’s Gender Specialist.
A. Relevance
 Country context: How relevant were the Projects to the interventions target groups, including Government’s needs and priorities and the current evolving country context? Does UNDP effectively address the most critical and relevant human security needs of the target population in Ukraine?
 Target groups: To what extent were the Projects relevant to address the needs of government partners, notably the newly emerging priorities in the crisis settings? What type of needs and priorities were the Projects unable to tackle (if any)? Had there consultation with beneficiaries and other stakeholders to ensure that the project remains
relevant and responsive to human security concerns? To what extent do the Projects interventions align with the needs of partner Ministries of Ukraine as the main Projects recipients?
 To what extent did the projects contribute to the broader goal of enhancing human security in Ukraine? What can be done additionally to better capture the needs of the target groups relevant to the focus of the Projects? To what extent is UNDP engagement a reflection of strategic considerations, including the role of UNDP in a particular development context and its comparative advantage? Suggest Project adaptation strategies to the crisis settings and potential scale-up directions focusing on the war response and recovery.
 • To what extent was the theory of change relevant and appropriate vision on which to base the initiatives? To what extent was the method of delivery selected by UNDP appropriate to the development context? How the Project goals and objectives could be reviewed, adjusted and scaled up to frame the development of the potential follow-up Projects to support the government partners targeting their newly emerging needs in consideration of the ongoing war and post-war recovery?
 To what extent did UNDP adopt gender-sensitive, human rights-based and conflict-sensitive approaches? How can UNDP integrate the concept of WPS in the programming of the future projects.
B. Coherence
 To what extent were the Projects aligned with the policies and strategies of the Government, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the UNDP Country Programme Document / UN Transitional Framework? Is the Project in line with Ukraine’s Recovery and Development Plan2 and UNDP Resilience Building and Recovery Framework for Ukraine3 developed after the onset of the full-scale war?
 How well do the projects align with the principles of human security and national development priorities and strategies in Ukraine? Is there coherence and coordination with other human security-focused initiatives, both within UNDP and with external partners? Do the projects complement or duplicate other ongoing human security initiatives in the region or country?
 To what extent did the Projects contribute to the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan, the Country Programme Document, UNDP Resilience Building and Recovery Framework for Ukraine outcomes and outputs?
 Have there been sufficient cooperation and exchange of information between the partners of the Projects? How did they correspond to each other and contribute to the achievement of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development?
 were the Projects building upon/seeking synergies with existing programmes, projects and strategies in order to maximize impact, efficiently allocate resources and avoid duplications?

C. Effectiveness
 Assess the overall performance of the Projects with reference to its respective Project documents / cost-sharing agreement, strategy, objectives (or lack of thereof) and indicators, and identify key issues and constraints that affected the achievement of Project objectives including per individual Project components, accounting for the crisis
settings. Were the planned objectives and outcomes achieved according to the results framework? Are the set targets feasible in the current country context? What are the results achieved beyond the logical framework?
 To what degree have the projects’ objectives been accomplished, and what tangible indicators demonstrate its success in enhancing human security? What evidence exists to illustrate that the projects have made a meaningful and positive impact on the human security of the target beneficiaries?
 How effective was the adjustment and administration of the Procurement cases in the current country context? To what extent were the processes effective in addressing the emerging needs of the government and people of Ukraine against the backdrop of the war?
 Was the cooperation with Project beneficiaries and key Project partners, including but not limited to the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Policy and other government partners successfully achieved and contributed to the achievement of the Project’s goals? How the role of the state partners
in the project could be enhanced?
 How effective were the Projects in delivering capacity development initiatives (training sessions, provision of equipment) for civil servants?
 In which areas does the projects have the greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the projects build on or expand these achievements?
 In which areas does the projects have the fewest achievements? What have been the constraining factors and why? How can or could they be overcome?

D. Efficiency
 To what extent was the project management structure as outlined in the project document efficient in generating the expected results?
 Has the Project demonstrated cost-effectiveness? Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise, etc.) been strategically allocated to achieve the intended outputs, outcomes and to address inequalities and gender issues? To what extent were partnership modalities conducive to the delivery of country programme outputs?
 Are the Project’s activities aligned with the schedule of activities as defined by the Project team and annual work plans? Are the disbursements and Project expenditures in line with budgets? Do the adjustments in Project’s activities and budget revisions adequately reflect the changes in operational circumstances and the programmatic environment?
Have the project activities been coordinated and implemented in a timely manner?
Were the Project management, coordination and monitoring efficient and appropriate? To what extent did monitoring systems provide management with a stream of data, disaggregated by sex, that allowed it to learn and adjust implementation accordingly?
 Did the monitoring consider gender equality and women empowerment issues? To what extent project monitoring results and clients’ feedback are incorporated in project design and delivery?
 To what extent did UNDP engage or coordinate with different beneficiaries (men and women), implementing partners, other United Nations agencies and national counterparts to achieve outcome-level results?
E. Sustainability
 Were the measures applied by the Project ensure that Project results (impact, if any, and outcomes) are likely to continue after the Project ends? Define the most promising areas requiring further support and scaling-up in the course of future interventions, considering the current evolving country context.
 Was there sufficient public/stakeholder awareness in support of the Project’s long-term objectives?
 What were the financial, social or political risks that may jeopardize the sustainability of Project results? Define the possible risks/challenges mitigating approaches.
 Were the grant activities or initiatives supported by the Projects likely to continue, be scaled up, replicated and increasingly contribute to the inclusive gender-responsive socio-economic development at the national and/or local level after the Project ends?
 To what extent the interventions have well-designed and well-planned exit strategies?
 Has the Project contributed to gender equality, women’s empowerment, promotion of WPS, human rights and social inclusion? To what extent were capacity development initiatives adequate to ensure sustainable improvements for women, men and vulnerable groups, and promote responsible practices and HRBA-oriented principles among civil servants? What can additionally be done to improve the sustainability of the Projects?
 Has the Projects contributed or is likely to contribute to long-term social and economic improvements, considering the current evolving country context?
 To what extent do UNDP interventions have well-designed and well-planned exit strategies which include a gender dimension? To what extent have partners committed to providing continuing support (financial, female and male staff, etc.)? To what extent do partnerships exist with other national institutions, NGOs, United Nations agencies, the private sector and development partners to sustain the attained results?
 To what extent are lessons learned documented by the project team on a continual basis and shared with appropriate parties who could learn from the project?
 What could be potential priority areas of engagement and corresponding recommendations for the remaining part of the Project and further Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions in terms of human security, considering emerging needs and priorities of the Project beneficiaries? Findings, conclusions and recommendations should reflect gender equality, WPS integration, women empowerment and social inclusion.

5. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
In cooperation with the two National Consultants, the International Consultant will be required to facilitate the usage of different methods to ensure that data gathering and analysis deliver evidence-based qualitative and quantitative information, based on diverse sources including project reports, survey results, individual meetings etc. This approach will not only enable the TE to assess causality through qualitative and quantitative means but also provide reasons for why certain results were achieved or not and to triangulate information for higher reliability of findings. The concrete mixed methodological approach will be detailed in the Inception report and stated in the Final report. All data provided in the report should be disaggregated, where possible, by sex and other social variables. Furthermore, the evaluation methods and sampling frame should address the diversity of stakeholders affected by the Projects. Ethical standards are required throughout the evaluation and all stakeholder groups are to be treated with integrity and respect for confidentiality.
The International Consultant and two National Consultants are expected to encourage the usage of a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government counterparts, civil society partners, the Japan Embassy in Ukraine, UNDP Country Office (CO) and Project team at all stages of the evaluation planning and implementation. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Project was successfully mainstreamed with UNDP Strategic Plan given the current country context.
The evaluation of Project performance will be carried out against the expectations set out in the Project Results Framework, which provides performance and impact indicators for Project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. All indicators in the Results Framework need to be assessed individually, with final achievements noted. An assessment of the Project M&E design, implementation and overall quality should be undertaken. The evaluation will assess the key financial aspects of the Project, including Project budget revisions. Project cost and funding data will be required from the Project, including annual expenditures. Variances between planned and actual expenditures will need to be assessed and explained. The evaluation also should include the value of money aspect – the minimum purchase price (economy) but also the maximum efficiency and effectiveness of the purchase.
The conclusions related to the implementation of the Project from its start until the end of June 2024 should be comprehensive and balanced, and highlight the strengths, weaknesses, challenges and outcomes of the Project. They should be well substantiated by the evidence and logically linked to the progress 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 Project beneficiaries, UNDP and Japan.
The recommendations to guide further Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions in the area of human security with a focus on war response, recovery and resilience building, should identify how best practices and achievements of the Projects can be scaled up or proliferated to better respond to the emerging needs and priorities of the governmental partners, as well as to adapt/strengthen the theory of change of the Projects, based on interviews with Project partners and beneficiaries and desk analysis (please see below). The recommendations need to be supported by an evidential basis, be credible, practical, and action-oriented, and define who is responsible for the action to have the potential to be used in decision-making.
The International Consultant should propose the methodology of evaluation (methods, approaches to be used, with particular focus on addressing gender-specific issues and inclusion of relevant SDGs, 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 stakeholders to meet should be agreed with UNDP. The evaluation products should consider gender and human rights issues. While proposing the methodology, the International Consultant should be guided by the UNDP approach to Project evaluations4.
The methodology will be based on the following:
1. Desk review of the documents listed below (including but not limited to):
a) The original Project documents, progress reports, annual work plans, M&E frameworks and financial documents;
b) Notes from meetings involved in the Project (such as board meeting minutes);
c) Other Project-related materials produced by the Project (such as publications, audio-visual materials and consultancies reports).
d) Monitoring reports produced under the project.
2. Interviews/group discussions with key partners and stakeholders, which can be conditionally divided into the following groups:
 The relevant UNDP Country Office representatives and the Project’s management and staff;
 Representatives of the GoJ;
 National government institutions;
 International development actors active in the field of intervention.
3. Independent surveys that are needed for identifying the outcome level results in specific groups of beneficiaries including Ukrainian citizens with vulnerabilities, civic servants participating in the project’s capacity development interventions etc.
4. Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.
5. Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods. To ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use, the evaluation team will ensure triangulation of the various data sources.
6.
The interviews are aimed to examine how the partners and stakeholders assess the Projects, their concerns and feedback. The Consultants will need to collect and analyse needs and suggestions and provide recommendations/vision on how future Japan’s and UNDP’s interventions could address those. A debriefing session will be also arranged for discussing the evaluation findings, results and recommendations.
Since the evaluation is mostly to be carried out virtually, consideration should be taken for stakeholders’ availability, as well as their ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. Given the remote nature of the assignment, field and observational visits will not be applicable; meanwhile, the focus group discussions might be organized online. Also the evaluation team will consists of 2 National Consultants who will coordinate the scheduling and performing of any necessary field and observation visits with International consultant and share their findings. All types of limitations (if any) in terms of data collection should be reflected in the final report.

6. EVALUATION PRODUCTS (KEY DELIVERABLES)
Under direct guidance of the International Consultant and in cooperation with another National one, the National Consultant shall provide the following deliverables:

Payment will be based upon the satisfactory completion of all deliverables upon review and acceptance by UNDP. 100% of the total amount shall be paid upon completion of the Deliverables 1-5.

7. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

A team of three (3) independent consultants will conduct the evaluation: one (1) international team leader and two (2) national experts, 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 Project and CO Staff to receive any clarifications and guidance that may be needed. UNDP Project and CO Staff will provide the Consultant with administrative and logistical support, as well as required data and documentation. UNDP Programme Analyst will also connect the Consultant with the wider programme unit, senior management and key evaluation stakeholders, review and approve inception reports including evaluation questions and methodologies, review and comment on draft evaluation reports, circulate draft and final evaluation reports, collect and consolidate comments on draft evaluation reports and share with the Consultant 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.
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 key product expected is a comprehensive evaluation report and PowerPoint presentation (with the parameters indicated above). The report must be as free as possible of technical jargon in order to ensure accessibility to its wide and diverse audience. The report should be in line with UNDP’s principles of gender-responsive communication 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).
Ethics
This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’5. The Consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing the collection of data and reporting of data. The Consultant should respect differences and accord equal space and dignity regardless of interviewees’ gender, race, sexual preference, ethnicity, ability, or other markers of identity. The Consultant must also ensure the 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 Consultant under this assignment will remain the property of UNDP Ukraine.

8. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS
 Education: Masters degree in Human Security, Development, International Relations, Peace Studies, Social/Political Sciences, Public Administration, Law or other relevant areas. Ph.D is desirable;
 Relevant professional experience: At least five (5) years of work experience in the area of development, emergency response, public administration, human security, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, , access to justice. (to be clearly specified in applicant’s CV)
 Experience with the concepts and thematic area of Human Security would be an asset. (to be clearly specified in applicant’s CV)
 Experience in evaluation: At least two (2) accomplished complex evaluations of projects where the candidate was the author or co-author, especially in public administration fields, human security, access to justice, with proficient understanding of gender aspects and WPS (a 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. (to be clearly specified in applicant’s CV)
 Languages proficiency: Excellent knowledge of Ukrainian as well as at least intermediate level of English; advanced level of English will be considered as an advantage.

10. 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 ToR. 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 the number of anticipated working days). There is no need to include travel and lodging costs from candidate home location to Kyiv as it will be agreed and reimbursed/purchased by UNDP separately.
Travel costs are not applicable. In the case of unforeseeable travel, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses should be agreed upon between UNDP and the Consultant prior to travel, and will be reimbursed. The 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/
Please take note that the currency of the proposal is UAH. Furthermore, UNDP will enter into a contract with the selected national consultant in UAH. Payment for services shall be made through bank transfer to the Contractor’s account during 30 (thirty) days from the date of services rendered.

DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS October 09, 2024.

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

Procurement Notices – Procurement Notices – UNDP-UKR-00998 – National Consultant (Social sphere)

Qualified women are strongly encouraged to apply.