Independent Consultant Evaluator: IRC’s final evaluation of Sida’s Humanitarian Framework Agreement V

Background of the project

Between April 2021 and March 2026, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) implemented Sida’s Humanitarian Framework Agreement (HFA) V. This agreement incorporates diverse funding mechanisms and programs, including the Program-Based Approach (PBA) humanitarian programs, Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) projects, and Methods Development and Capacity-Building (MD) projects.

Throughout the five years of HFA implementation, the IRC has operated in 29 different country programs and executed 14 different methods and capacity-building projects (see Annex 1). These projects included two INGO forums and two passthrough grants for the INGO, InterAction. In Year 1, the IRC focused on implementing the PBA. Year 2 was dedicated to consolidating these programs to deliver humanitarian aid using the PBA’s fully flexible approach. Year 3 continued in the same vein while expanding the number of countries receiving multi-year funding, increasing from three multi-year countries in Year 2 to eight in Year 3. Years 4 and 5 marked a transition, allowing PBA funds to be utilized across the entire country strategy action plan (SAP). Previously, country programs could only use PBA funds to finance a portion of the SAP.

The Sida HFA V final evaluation will assess the impact of these mechanisms, particularly the PBA, on humanitarian outcomes, operations, and partnerships.

This final evaluation will be led by an external Independent Consultant Evaluator with guidance from an Evaluation Committee composed of IRC staff members.

This ToR outlines the role of the Independent Consultant Evaluator.

 

Scope of work

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will be tasked with leading the research, drafting, validation and finalization of the evaluation deliverables. We expect this work to take no more than 65 working days over an 8 month period (February 2026 – September 2026). The bulk of data collection, analysis, and report writing will take place between February and June 2026, but IRC expects the consultant to reserve sufficient time for report revisions and several presentations (as described in the deliverables) between July and September 2026.

The evaluation will primarily focus on the results achieved through the HFA funded programs and projects, while integrating the OECD DAC criteria (Sustainability, Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, and Coherence). The scope includes:

• The humanitarian programmes which Sida contributed to in part with the PBA, i.e. either the portfolio or the entire country programme as determined in the initial proposals accepted by Sida on a yearly basis.

• Where relevant and explicitly mentioned, the selected RRM projects and;

• Where relevant and explicitly mentioned, the selected Methods Development and Capacity Building (MD) projects.

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will conduct a desk review of material across the 29 Sida HFA-funded countries, which will include: review of the 29 Strategic Action Plans (SAPs), mapping which SAP indicators were included for which countries, and aggregating the Annual Statistics data on those indicators across the relevant countries. The desk review will also include an in-depth review of materials for five deep-dive countries: Ethiopia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The in-depth review will include materials such as Sida proposals, Sida annual reports, Sida evaluation reports, and PBA, RRM, and MD materials.

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will also be expected to collect primary data for the five deep-dive countries through a combination of virtual and in-person focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and small-scale (non-representative) surveys as relevant with IRC staff, partner staff, and clients. Travel to Nigeria and Ethiopia are required, and IRC MEAL staff will support in arranging meetings and client visits as appropriate. Travel to Yemen is optional given access limitations. For Venezuela and Myanmar, all deep-dive data collection will be conducted virtually.

Key deliverables will include an inception report (along with data collection tools), interim report, draft evaluation report and presentation, and final evaluation report and presentation (along with all raw datasets). The Independent Consultant Evaluator will also be expected to host validation sessions with each deep-dive country. See Section V for more details on deliverables.

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will be managed by the IRC Global MEAL Practice Lead, and will work closely with the evaluation committee composed of IRC HQ, regional, and country representatives. The Independent Consultant Evaluator will be expected to provide weekly updates to ensure the evaluation remains on track and addresses key issues.

 

Evaluation Questions 

Primary focus: To what extent have HFA-funded programs achieved their intended outcomes (and any unintended outcomes)?

 

Key questions:

What results were achieved?  

What quantitative results were achieved across the countries that received Sida HFA V funding?

Annex 2 includes the list of 29 IRC SAP Scale indicators for which quantitative aggregation and analysis is required. IRC collects data against these indicators on an annual basis, and will provide that dataset to the consultant for analysis across the Sida-funded country programs. 

What were the intended outcomes across different program areas and what unforeseen positive and negative impacts emerged?

How have HFA-funded programmes and projects reduced risks for crisis-affected populations—especially women, children and marginalized groups?

What enabled or hindered these results? 

What were the key enablers and barriers (e.g. flexible funding, multiyear funding, adaptive practices, local partnerships) that influenced the achievement of outcomes?

To what extent did internal IRC frameworks or tools (e.g. the Outcomes and Evidence Framework (OEF), IMPACT self-assessments), contribute to improving program quality, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and scalability? What were their limitations?

How did the flexibility of Sida funding, especially the PBA and RRM mechanisms, influence program results in terms of quality, timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and scalability?

To what extent were IRC and its implementing partners able to enjoy the benefits of the flexible funding, and where did existing systems/processes limit flexibility?

What lessons can be drawn for future programming and funding? 

What interventions and factors were most effective in incorporating environmental and climate considerations into programming?

What adaptive management strategies (e.g. adjusting SAPs based on changing context) were most effective in allowing programs to respond to emerging needs and unforeseen challenges, and how can future models further support adaptability?

Secondary focus (supporting analysis to provide deeper insight into why outcomes were or weren’t achieved):

 

Key questions:

Relevance: How well-aligned were the interventions and results with the evolving needs and priorities of target populations, including marginalized groups? 

Coherence: How did interventions align with and complement or influence other IRC, Sida, and partner-funded programs (including MD efforts)?

Sustainability: To what extent have local partnerships and capacity-building efforts enabled sustained service delivery, local leadership and decision-making beyond the project timeline? (Note: SAP Scale indicators related to local partnerships, decision-making, and capacity building will be used as proxies for expected sustainability, in addition to qualitative analysis.)

Methodology

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will design the evaluation methodology and data collection and analysis plan as part of the inception report (see Section V on deliverables), but must align with the following expectations.

Approaches/Values 

The evaluation will be carried out with the following core values and considerations in mind: 

• Gender-responsive and equity-focused: The evaluation will examine changes in gender and power relationships as relevant to the evaluation questions, and will include marginalized populations as part of primary data collection.

• Participatory: The evaluation will actively involve a range of stakeholders throughout the process, including humanitarian practitioners, other local actors and affected populations as appropriate. The evaluation process will emphasise regular review, validation sessions with Country Programs, and similar feedback loops to ensure the results are as accurate and useful as possible across different experiences.

• Adaptive programming: The evaluation will apply an adaptive programming lens to assess how programmatic decisions evolved in response to changing humanitarian needs and whether flexible funding led to more timely and relevant responses. The analysis will also identify barriers to adaptation, such as delays in decision-making or external constraints.

• Evidence-based analysis: The evaluation will leverage IRC’s existing data systems for quantitative analysis and desk review.

• Comparative and trend analysis: The evaluation will identify and assess variations across countries, funding modalities, and program strategies as relevant to the evaluation questions.

• Utilization-focused: The evaluator will ensure findings are specific and actionable for program improvement, with practical and actionable recommendations that are directly applicable to future programming, adaptations (e.g. during emergencies and protracted crises) and learning efforts.

 

Data Collection 

The evaluation will use a mixed-method approach that includes quantitative data from IRC’s systems (SAP Scale indicators, Core Indicators, Annual Statistics, etc.) and small-scale staff/partner surveys as relevant, along with qualitative data from KIIs, FGDs, and desk review material. As much as possible, the evaluation will leverage existing information and data collection processes, especially on the first four years of the HFA, considering the high staff turnover and the potential difficulty in having the relevant people for the interviews. The Independent Consultant Evaluator will be inducted into IRC’s adaptive programming models and internal frameworks to ensure that they are familiar with IRC’s methods before engaging in the evaluation.

Desk review of secondary data 

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will conduct a desk review of material across the 29 Sida HFA-funded countries, which will include: review of the 29 Strategic Action Plans (SAPs), mapping which SAP indicators were included for which countries, and aggregating the Annual Statistics data on those indicators across the relevant countries. The desk review will also include an in-depth review of materials for five deep-dive countries: Ethiopia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The in-depth review will include materials such as Sida proposals, Sida annual reports, Sida evaluation reports, and PBA, RRM, and MD materials; if the performance indicators used in these reports significantly differs from the SAP indicators, some additional quantitative analysis/aggregation will be required for those five countries.

Primary data collection (virtual and in-person) 

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will also be expected to collect primary data for the five deep-dive countries through a combination of virtual and in-person focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and small-scale surveys with IRC staff, partner staff, and clients. In-person travel to Nigeria and Ethiopia are required, and IRC MEAL staff will support in arranging meetings and client visits as appropriate. Travel to Yemen is optional given access limitations. For Venezuela and Myanmar, all deep-dive data collection will be conducted virtually.

Data Analysis 

The Independent Consultant Evaluator will be expected to compare outcomes across different country contexts to understand variations and trends across countries and years. Data should be analyzed and presented for each of the key evaluation questions outlined in Section II. IRC does not have a preference for quantitative or qualitative analysis software; the Independent Consultant Evaluator will be responsible for securing any necessary licenses as needed (IRC will consider reimbursement of licensing costs on a case-by-case basis).

For each deep-dive country, the Independent Consultant Evaluator will also be expected to host validation sessions to reflect on the data analysis and recommendations; the sequencing of these sessions should be included in the inception report.

 

Timeline

The consultant’s proposed timeline is 8 months, with the majority of work occurring from February-June and light follow up as needed from July-September. The consultancy will end on 30th September 2026; no extensions will be granted.

 

Deliverables:

There are three key deliverables as part of the evaluation which must be submitted on time

by the Independent Consultant Evaluator. Should there be any delays the Independent Consultant Evaluator must communicate this immediately with the Global MEAL Practice Lead; if delays are significant, it could lead to contract revisions or cancellation.

Inception report and draft data collection tools (due no later than March 13, 2026)

Purpose: Ensure a clear, shared understanding of the evaluation scope, questions, methodology, workplan, and logistics before significant data collection begins.

 

Suggested structure of the inception report:

Introduction & Background 

• Brief restatement of the evaluation purpose, scope, and key questions.

Methodology & Data Collection Plan 

• Evaluation design and sampling approach for countries and program type [PBA, RRA, MD].

• Proposed data collection tools (e.g., interview guides, survey instruments) with links or attachments to the draft versions.

• Approach to ethical considerations, conflict sensitivity, and data protection protocols.

Evaluation Matrix 

• Present main and sub-questions mapped against proposed data sources.

Work Plan & Timeline 

• Key milestones (desk review, country visit(s), stakeholder consultations, validation sessions, analysis).

• Roles and responsibilities.

Risks & Mitigation Measures 

• Potential constraints (security, staff turnover, data quality) and how the evaluator will address them.

Interim report (due no later than April 17, 2026)

Purpose: Provide early insights from desk reviews and initial data collection. This deliverable can guide any needed course corrections prior to the full evaluation report draft.

 

Suggested Structure:

Executive Summary (1-2 pages) 

• High-level preliminary findings.

• Early recommendations or issues needing immediate attention.

Progress Update & Preliminary Findings 

• Summary of desk review (key documents analysed, data gaps identified).

• Emerging themes or patterns in relation to the evaluation questions.

Methodological Updates 

• Any adjustments to the initial plan, including revised timeline if needed.

• Changes to data collection tools, sampling, or travel.

Next Steps 

• Outline of next steps, with specific tasks and responsibilities.

Annex 

• PowerPoint presentation for 30-minute validation session with IRC Evaluation Committee

Evaluation report (draft report must be submitted no later than May 22, 2026; final report must be submitted no later than September 1, 2026)

 

Purpose: Analyse all data, provide a rigorous synthesis of findings related to the key questions (validated with key stakeholders to ensure appropriate interpretation), and present actionable recommendations.

 

Suggested Structure:

Executive Summary (max 4 pages)

• Overview of main findings, conclusions and priority recommendations.

• Targeted for senior leadership and donors who need a quick snapshot.

Background & Context 

• Brief recap of HFA structure, objectives and rationale for the evaluation.

• Scope and coverage (countries, time frame, evaluation questions).

Methodology 

• Summary of data collection methods, sampling, limitations, ethical considerations.

Findings  

• Include a section for each evaluation question and sub-question which summarizes the data and key findings. Highlight illustrative examples and/or country case studies as useful.

• For each of the six key overarching evaluation questions, provide at least 2-3 actionable recommendations and identify the intended audience.

• Describe any cross-cutting trends or issues identified as relevant, along with any recommendations.

Conclusions 

• Interpret the findings considering the evaluation’s objectives (linking to relevant findings).

• Highlight overarching lessons, patterns, or themes relevant to IRC and Sida.

Table of aggregated SAP Indicator results across the 29 Sida HFA funded countries (result of the desk review and compilation of existing IRC data)

Summary of Recommendations (in table format) 

• List each recommendation along with priority for action (high, medium, low priority).

• Clearly indicate audience/actor for each recommendation (Sida, IRC HQ division, technical unit, country programs, local partners, etc).

• Very brief (1-2 sentence) summary of supporting rationale for each recommendation.

Annexes 

• Evaluation matrix, data collection tools, list of interviewees, references and any country case study deep-dives.

• Learning brief

• PowerPoint presentation for the dissemination event

• Raw datasets (as applicable: survey dataset, FGD/KII transcripts, code books, etc.) in original format.

Payment Rate and Schedule:

Payment for this role will be based on a maximum of USD $500 per day rate over 65 working days.

Payment will be split between three tranches: 

• Tranche 1: 10% upon approval of the Inception Report

• Tranche 2: 50% upon submission and approval of Interim Report

• Tranche 3: 40% upon submission and approval of draft Evaluation Report and first validation presentation

Travel costs (flights, lodging, transportation, etc.) will be reimbursed after submission of expense reports and receipts. IRC does not pay for per diem, benefits, or insurance.

 

Requirements:

Essential qualifications:

• Advanced degree in relevant field such as statistics, international development, public policy, or other social sciences.

• Advanced training in quantitative data analysis and/or evaluation methodologies.

• Minimum five years of experience designing, implementing, and supporting evaluations and/or research studies.

• Author or co-author on several recent evaluations, research reports, or other relevant publications (please include links to these in CV and/or cover letter)

• Experience collecting data at community level in multiple IRC countries.

• Excellent communication skills, including superior writing skills and the ability to plan for and prepare strategic communications and presentations.

• Proven ability to communicate effectively across cultures and to navigate gender and power dynamics with sensitivity.

• Willingness to work outside of normal business hours to accommodate interviewees (all virtual data collection should be conducted during the relevant IRC office’s working hours).

• Experience and comfort with traveling to complex international contexts; ability to navigate and manage logistics independently.

• Strong computer skills: proficiency with MS Office, MS PowerPoint, and statistical software (SPSS, Stata, Nvivo, R, or other software).

• Fluency in English.

Preferred:

• Experience with Sida programming and/or flexible funding mechanisms.

• Experience working or traveling in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Venezuela, or Yemen.

• Proficiency in Spanish or Arabic.

• Proficiency in CommCare or other digital data collection tools (KoBo, ODK, etc.)

 

How to Apply

Application instructions:

Please submit through: https://theirc.wd1.myworkdayjobs.com/, a CV along with a cover letter which outlines your interest and qualifications for conducting this evaluation. In either your CV or cover letter, include links to several recent evaluations or publications where you are listed as an author or co-author.

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS