The HIV-Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) Knows No Borders Programme is being implemented in six countries, namely: Eswatini, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The regional programme is implemented by IOM in partnership with Save the Children (SC) and other partners and aims at “improving quality of life and HIV-SRH outcomes among vulnerable youth, migrants and sex workers in Southern Africa”. The programme has been implemented across multiple countries in Southern Africa, with a focus on service integration, community engagement, and cross-border collaboration. The programme is in the second phase of implementation (2021-2026) with funding from the Government of the Netherlands, and it is ending in December 2026. The evaluation will assess the outcomes and impact of the Knows No Borders Programme and inform the outcome indicator targets and results framework in the following objectives:

Objective 1 - Healthy Choices: Young vulnerable people (YVP) including migrants and sex workers in migration affected communities have safe sexual behaviour and greater freedom of choice about their HIV and SRH rights.

Objective 2- Access to Services: Young vulnerable people (YVP) including migrants and sex workers in migration affected communities have increased access to and utilization of quality SRH-HIV and other support services.

Objective 3 -Enabling environment: Young vulnerable people (YVP) including migrants and sex workers in migration affected communities have their SRH-HIV rights and needs progressively addressed in changed socio-cultural norms, and policy reforms and implementation at all levels.

As the programme approaches its conclusion in 2026, this final evaluation is being undertaken to generate credible evidence of the programme’s performance, effectiveness, and sustainability. The evaluation is intended to serve as a learning and accountability mechanism, ensuring that stakeholders have a clear understanding of what worked well, what challenges were encountered, and what improvements are needed for future interventions. The timing of this evaluation is strategic: it coincides with the end of the programme cycle, allowing for a holistic assessment of achievements against planned objectives and informing decisions on scale-up, replication, or redesign.
 

Department: Migration Health Division (MHD)

Project Name: SRHR- HIV Knows No Borders - Phase II 

Project Code: ZA99P0516 / MA0502

Evaluation scope

The final evaluation will cover the full intervention period of the programme, from 2021 to 2026, which corresponds to Phase II of the initiative. The scope includes all major activities implemented during this phase, encompassing planning, implementation, and monitoring processes. The evaluation will assess outputs, outcomes, and contributions toward the programme’s intended objectives, as well as the integration of cross-cutting themes such as youth participation, economic empowerment, and mental health within SRHR-HIV interventions.

Geographically, the evaluation will include selected project sites across the six participating countries. The evaluation will not cover Phase I of the programme (prior to 2021), nor will it include interventions outside the SRHR-HIV thematic scope. Activities implemented by other organizations or unrelated projects within the same regions are also excluded. This defined scope ensures that the evaluation remains focused, feasible within available time and resources, and sufficient to achieve its purpose of assessing programme performance, documenting lessons learned, and informing future programming.

Evaluation criteria

The evaluation will apply internationally recognized standards, specifically the OECD-DAC criteria and IOM evaluation principles, to ensure a rigorous and systematic assessment of the programme. The criteria will form the basis for analysing the programme’s design, implementation, and results. The evaluation will focus on the following dimensions:

i) Relevance: Assess the extent to which the programme design and objectives respond to the needs and priorities of the target populations and align with national policies and donor strategies.

ii) Effectiveness: Evaluate the degree to which the programme achieved its intended outputs and outcomes, including the effectiveness of implementation strategies, partnerships, and coordination mechanisms.

iii) Efficiency: Analyse the use of resources in relation to results achieved, examining cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and management processes to determine whether resources were utilized optimally.

iv) Impact: Measure the programme’s contribution to SRHR and HIV outcomes at individual, community, and system levels, including any significant positive or negative, intended or unintended effects.

v) Sustainability: Examine the likelihood that benefits and results will continue after the programme ends, considering institutional capacity, community ownership, and integration into existing systems.

vi) Cross-Cutting Themes: The evaluation will integrate gender equality and human rights as cross-cutting dimensions across all criteria. It will assess the extent to which the programme promoted gender equity, addressed the specific needs of girls, women, boys, and men, and contributed to protecting, respecting, and fulfilling the human rights of migrant and vulnerable populations. Special attention will be given to inclusive and non-discrimination in programme design and delivery.

Evaluation questions

The below questions are indicative questions to be addressed in the evaluation under each evaluation criterion:

Relevance

•  To what extent did the programme’s design and delivery strategies reflect the evolving needs and priorities of beneficiaries, including marginalized and vulnerable groups?

•  How well did the programme align with national health policies, donor priorities, and regional SRHR-HIV commitments, and were these alignments maintained throughout implementation?

•  Were the programme’s objectives and activities logically coherent and contextually appropriate given socio-economic, cultural, and political realities?

•  What external and internal factors most significantly influenced the programme’s ability to remain relevant, and how were these factors addressed?

Effectiveness

•  To what degree did the programme achieve its intended outputs and outcomes, and what evidence supports these achievements?

•  What measurable changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, institutional capacity, and social norms can be credibly attributed to the programme interventions?

•  Were there any unintended positive or negative effects, and how did they influence overall programme performance?

•  What barriers limited access to programme services or benefits, and how effectively were these mitigated by the project?

•  How adaptive was the programme in responding to contextual challenges, emerging needs, or external shocks while maintaining progress toward outcomes?

Efficiency

•  How economically were resources (financial, human, and technical) utilized to achieve results, and how does this compare to alternative delivery models?

•  Did the programme achieve an optimal balance between cost, quality, and timeliness of outputs and outcomes?

•  Were inputs and resources mobilized and delivered in a timely manner to support planned activities?

•  To what extent did partnerships, coordination mechanisms, and existing systems contribute to or hinder efficiency?

Impact

•  What significant and measurable changes-intended or unintended, positive or negative-occurred at individual, community, and institutional levels as a result of the programme?

•  How did the programme influence SRHR and HIV outcomes, and what evidence demonstrates its contribution to broader health and development goals?

•  Did the programme catalyse systemic changes, such as policy reforms, institutional strengthening, or shifts in social norms?

•  Which interventions or strategies were most instrumental in generating impact, and why?

Sustainability

•  To what extent are the programme’s benefits likely to continue beyond its completion, and what mechanisms support this continuity?

•  Were strategies for institutionalization, capacity building, and community ownership effectively implemented?

•  How well was the programme integrated into local governance structures, health systems, and cultural contexts?

•  Are there indications that programme approaches will be scaled up, replicated, or sustained by partners and stakeholders?

Cross-Cutting Issues: Gender and Human Rights

•  To what extent did the programme uphold the rights and dignity of beneficiaries, including migrants and vulnerable populations?

•  How effective did the programme integrate gender equality and human rights principles into its design, implementation, and monitoring?

The evaluator may identify additional questions during the process to better respond to the evaluation purpose. The evaluation will also identify the most important results, lessons learned and best practices to inform the consolidation of the project and will set recommendations to improve the design and implementation of similar projects in the future.

Evaluation methodology

The evaluation will be guided by a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative techniques to ensure a comprehensive and credible assessment of the programme. This approach is recommended to capture diverse perspectives, enable triangulation of data, and provide both breadth and depth in the analysis. However, the consultant will be responsible for proposing a detailed methodology and work plan, including sampling strategy, data collection tools, and analysis framework, which will operationalize this approach. The proposed methodology will be reviewed and approved by the IOM Sub-Regional Office, in consultation with implementing partners and relevant stakeholders.

The evaluation is expected to include structured household surveys targeting approximately 250 direct beneficiaries per country, selected through stratified random sampling to ensure representation by gender, age, and vulnerability status. Secondary data sources, such as programme monitoring reports, administrative records, and progress documentation, will be reviewed to validate reported outputs and outcomes.

Qualitative data collection will likely involve key informant interviews (KIIs) with programme staff, government officials (health, education, immigration, social welfare), and community leaders; focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries, including youth, women, and marginalized groups; and in-depth interviews with selected stakeholders to capture nuanced insights.

The evaluation must comply with IOM Data Protection Principles, UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation, and relevant ethical guidelines. This includes ensuring informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality, and the application of the do-no-harm principle throughout the evaluation process.

Category B Consultants: Tangible and measurable outputs of the work assignment

The proposed tangible and measurables outputs and timelines are as follows:

The selected consultant will enter into a consultancy agreement with IOM in accordance with the Organization’s policies, procedures, and procurement rules. Payments will be linked to the successful and timely completion of key deliverables as follows: 30% - upon submission and IOM approval of the inception report, including all data collection tools and 70% - upon submission and IOM approval of the final evaluation report, including all required annexes and raw data.

Performance indicators for the evaluation of results

The performance of the consultant will be measured based on capacity to deliver the outputs outlined below, whereby, the consultant will be expected to incorporate all feedback received from regional and country teams. The consultant will be required to respond to or address any questions arising from the review process before finalizing the deliverables. The consultant’s commitment to delivering quality outputs in a timely manner, aligned to the agreed methodology as proposed in the inception report will be critical. The deliverables of the evaluation are as follows:

•  An inception report that clearly outlines the evaluation approach and tools to be used. The inception report must also include an evaluation matrix which includes the methodology used, indicators, evaluation questions and detailed work plan.

•  A draft evaluation report (maximum of 20 pages without annexes), including an executive summary and outlining the progress of the project indicators, data sources and findings of the evaluation, good practices, lessons learned, missed opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, gaps and challenges on the design, management and implementation of the programme. The draft of the report will be presented to IOM for comments and input, after which the evaluator will finalize the report and submit the final evaluation report to IOM.

•  A presentation of the evaluation findings.

•  A final evaluation report that reflects comments/feedback from IOM. The final report should be structured according to IOM evaluation report template that includes the following key sections:

a.   Executive summary

b.   Introduction

c.   Context and purpose of evaluation

d.   Evaluation framework and methodology

e.   Evaluation findings

f.    Conclusion and recommendations

g.   Annexes (tools, list of respondents, questions guide etc. )

•  A two-page evaluation brief.