Under the US CDC project titled, Global Emergency Response and Recovery Partner Engagement: Expanding Efforts and Strategies to Improve Rapid Response to Public Health Emergencies Globally CDC-RFA-GH-23-0042, IOM is seeking a consultant to conduct an evaluation of the Interagency Field Guide on Tuberculosis Prevention and Care among Refugees and Other Populations in Humanitarian Settings to assess how effectively the guide has been used, what has been learned from its application in humanitarian contexts, and to provide recommendations on its utility, uptake, and potential improvements for future use.

Project Context and Scope: 

Tuberculosis (TB) remains one of the leading infectious diseases globally, causing significant morbidity and mortality each year. Refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), migrants, and other populations affected by humanitarian crises face heightened vulnerability to TB due to poverty, overcrowded living conditions, undernutrition, disrupted health services, and weak health systems.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) delivers emergency health services to crisis-affected populations worldwide while simultaneously strengthening health systems for recovery and resilience. IOM supports national and local health authorities by strengthening capacity, supplying essential medicines and commodities, and delivering direct health services in humanitarian settings. In addition, IOM works across the mobility continuum to address the health needs of people on the move, including refugees and migrants, ensuring continuity of care and access to essential services.

In 2022, an interagency field guide was developed to strengthen national emergency preparedness and response for TB prevention and care, including prevention, diagnosis, and treatment—in public health emergencies and complex humanitarian settings. This guidance aims to support governments, humanitarian actors, and health partners through the provision of strategic approaches, managerial guidance, and interventions to strengthen TB prevention, diagnosis, care, and treatment in humanitarian emergencies affecting refugees and other displaced populations.

IOM, in collaboration with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other partners, seeks to commission an independent evaluation of this field guide to assess its relevance, usability, and contribution to improving TB services in humanitarian contexts and to make recommendations on how to increase its use in humanitarian settings. 

Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

The overall objective of this consultancy is to evaluate the Interagency Field Guide on TB Prevention and Care among Refugees and Other Populations in Humanitarian Settings, with a focus on relevant stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of its content, as well as its operationalization and implementation in selected humanitarian contexts.

Specific objectives include:

• Assessing stakeholders’ awareness and understanding of the field guide.

• Evaluating the extent to which the guide has been operationalized and integrated into TB programming in humanitarian settings.

  1. Operationalization: The evaluation is meant to review how the guide is institutionalized and embedded into national, sub-national or local systems and structures to make implementation possible. This may include:

     • Adapting the guide’s recommendations to country or humanitarian-context realities (e.g., epidemiology, health system capacity, displacement patterns).

     • Integrating the guide into national tuberculosis (TB) policies, emergency preparedness plans, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and partner frameworks.

     • Developing or revising implementation tools such as clinical algorithms, training materials, reporting templates, and monitoring frameworks aligned with the guide.

     • Allocating roles, responsibilities, and resources among stakeholders to enable application of the guide.

     • Incorporating the guide into coordination mechanisms (e.g., health clusters, TB working groups).

  2. Implementation: The evaluation should assess the actual execution and on the ground application of the guide recommendations in humanitarian settings to deliver TB prevention and care services among the specific populations of concern. This may include:

     • Delivering TB screening, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention services in accordance with the guide’s recommendations.

     • Applying recommended service delivery models (e.g., community-based TB care, integration with primary health services).

     • Training healthcare workers and frontline responders using materials aligned with the guide.

     • Coordinating across agencies to ensure continuity of TB care during displacement or emergencies.

     • Monitoring service delivery outcomes and adjusting programming based on field realities.

• Identifying implementation challenges, limitations, and enabling factors.

• Assessing the guide’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact/outcomes, sustainability/usefulness, and inclusiveness using OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.Recognizing the ambitious scope of applying the full OECD-DAC framework within the consultancy timeframe and across diverse humanitarian contexts, the evaluation will adopt a pragmatic and utilization-focused approach. The analysis will prioritize key learning questions and generate evidence-based, indicative findings rather than statistically representative conclusions, with a view to informing practical improvements and future use of the guide

• Providing actionable, prioritized recommendations to:

  1. Improve utilization of the guide in humanitarian settings; and

  2. Inform potential adaptation or updates to enhance the guide’s operational usefulness.

Scope of Work and Key Activities

Under the technical supervision of Senior Programme Officer, Health in Emergencies in IOM and in close collaboration with CDC and other stakeholders, the Consultant will undertake the following activities:

1. Inception Report Development

• Develop a detailed Evaluation Inception report, which should include a work plan and methodology, including tools for key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and field visits.

• Coordinate with IOM Headquarters, Regional Offices, and selected Country Offices, as well as relevant CDC counterparts, to support planning and logistics.

• Conduct a comprehensive desk review of relevant documents, including:

  • The interagency TB field guide

  • National TB policies and strategies

  • Relevant TB prevention and care SOPs, guidelines, and frameworks, including for humanitarian actors

  • Existing reports, evaluations, and programme data

• Conduct remote KIIs with selected global, regional, and country-level stakeholders as appropriate.

2. Country-Level Consultations and Fieldwork

• Conduct in-country consultations in one to two countries (budget dependent) with ongoing humanitarian emergencies where the guide has either been used or not used (to be selected by IOM).

• Engage with Ministries of Health, National TB Programmes, humanitarian health organizations, NGOs, UN agencies, and other relevant stakeholders.

• Facilitate national and sub-national consultative sessions focusing on:

  • Sensitization of the field guide

  • Suggested operationalization and implementation of the field guide

• Undertake KIIs, FGDs, and participatory discussions.

• Conduct field visits to humanitarian settings (e.g., clinics, health posts, community-based sites, laboratories, etc ) where elements of the field guide are being used or could be applied.

• Review available program-level aggregate TB data (e.g., screening, testing, diagnosis, preventive and curative treatment initiation, treatment outcomes).

3. Analysis and Reporting

• Analyze findings using the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria outlined below.

• Prepare a draft evaluation report, including evidence-based findings and practical recommendations.

• Revise the draft report based on two rounds of consolidated feedback from IOM and partners.

• Submit a finalized evaluation report.

This comprehensive approach will help identify the guide’s strengths and areas for improvement (e.g., content, framing, formatting), as well as considerations related to its implementation or potential implementation. It will inform decision-makers and steer future implementation or adaptation of the guide. Additionally, it will generate valuable insights for the continuous improvement of TB services in humanitarian settings by providing recommendations grounded in good practices and lessons learned.

Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation will apply the following OECD-DAC criteria:

• Relevance

  • Examine to what extent stakeholders are aware of the guide and how they became informed about it. 

  • Assess whether the field guide addresses current needs and priorities of the target users (e.g., government, humanitarian agencies, NGOs).

  • Examine alignment with national policies, international standards, and interagency strategies.

• Effectiveness

  • Evaluate to what extent the field guide achieves its intended purpose or objectives.

  • Consider whether users find it practical, usable, and whether it has influenced decision-making or coordination.

• Efficiency

  • Look at the accessibility of the guide—how efficiently (e.g. speed, resources required including funds and expertise, etc) can practitioners apply it in the field?

• Coherence

  • Examine the consistency of the field guide with other relevant guidance, tools, and frameworks (e.g., international and national).

  • Identify overlaps, gaps, or contradictions between this guide and any existing national or partner guides on TB care in humanitarian settings. .

• Impact / Outcomes

  • Assess the guide’s contribution to improved coordination, quality, or effectiveness of field operations.

  • Identify any unintended positive or negative effects of the implementation of the guide.

• Sustainability / Usefulness

  • Evaluate whether the guide is being institutionalized and integrated into ongoing practices or training.

  • Assess the likelihood of the guide’s continued use and provide recommendations for potential updates.

• Participation (optional but valuable)

  • Assess how diverse stakeholder perspectives were considered in the development and use of the guide.

  • Consider disability, and localization dimensions, including how local contexts—such as geopolitical factors, population or subpopulation characteristics, and other relevant considerations—may shape the adaptation and application of the guide.

  Evaluation Questions

• Criteria	Evaluation questions
  Relevance	To what extent are stakeholders aware of the guide and how did they became informed about it? How closely does the field guide address current needs and priorities of MOH/State MOH/local health authorities? How closely does the field guide address current needs and priorities of humanitarian agencies and international NGOs? How closely does the field guide address current needs and priorities of local NGOs or other target users? How closely is the guidance aligned with national TB prevention, treatment and care policies? How closely is the guidance aligned with international TB standards and any interagency strategies? Has there been any adjustments to the guide to better address evolving needs or circumstances? What updates or revisions may be required to ensure the guide remains responsive to evolving needs and changing contexts?
  Coherence	To what extent is the field guide compatible with other relevant guidance, tools, and frameworks (e.g. NTP preparedness/response plans for these populations, SOPs used by humanitarian agencies or other relevant international and national NGOs providing clinical TB care in these settings)?  To what extent may the principles and elements in the field guide already be in use, even if there is not explicit knowledge or application of the field guide?
  Effectiveness	To what extent has the field guide, where implemented, achieved its intended objectives?  What challenges or obstacles were encountered during implementation, and how were they addressed? What proportion of consulted stakeholders perceive the Field Guide to have been beneficial and to have contributed positively to tuberculosis (TB) prevention and care in humanitarian settings? (disaggregation?) What proportion of interviewed stakeholders perceive the guidance to be practical and usable, and to have influenced decision-making and/or coordination in humanitarian settings? How effectively does the guidance address the TB care concerns and promote the overall well-being of different humanitarian populations specifically (e.g. refugees, migrants, IDPs)?
  Efficiency	How cost-effective was the implementation of the field guide? Could the field guide have been implemented with fewer resources without reducing the quality and quantity of the results? To what extent did the field guide demonstrate operational applicability for practitioners implementing it in humanitarian settings?
  Impact	What measurable and qualitative changes occurred because of the implementation of the field guide (assess contribution to improved coordination, service/programme quality and effectiveness of field operations and this should include intended and unintended positive or negative effects)? What are the short, medium and long-term changes to which the field guide implementation has contributed? Can those changes /outcomes/ expected impact be attributed to the implementation of the field guide? Are there any contributions from external factors?
  Sustainability	To what extent has the field guide been institutionalized/integrated into ongoing stakeholder practices, structures? Integrated into ongoing capacity training to support longer term sustainability of use?  What is the likelihood that the field guide will continue to be used by practitioners? To what extent and in what ways would stakeholders recommend updating the guide to enhance its operational application in humanitarian settings?  What measures could be put into place to ensure its continued impact and relevance?
  Participation	How did the implementation of the field guide incorporate diverse stakeholder perspectives—including disability and localization—and account for local contexts, such as geopolitical factors, population characteristics, and other relevant considerations, during its development and in subsequent sustainability measures?

  Evaluation Methodology

  Methodologies for data collection may include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Documentary review to gain an understanding of the context, documents supporting the planning, implementation, and outcomes of the intervention. 
• Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders, partners, and beneficiaries.
• Field visits for observational evaluation
• Consultative Sessions at national and field level

Ethics, norms and standards for evaluation 

The evaluation shall follow the norms and standards of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG)[1] and the UN Data Protection and Privacy Principles[2], especially those relating to interaction with project beneficiaries. The consultant shall abide by the UNEG Ethical Guidelines[3] and its Code of Conduct for Evaluations in the UN System[4], in particular the Pledge on Ethical Conduct in Evaluation.

At all stages, the evaluation should follow the IOM Data Protection Principles^[5] and the IOM Data Protection Manual[6], especially those relating to collecting data by lawful means, obtaining the informed consent of individuals, and the protection and confidentiality of personal data. Obtaining informed consent from data sources is a sine qua non for data collection, analysis, and use. 

In its design, implementation and dissemination of results, the evaluation should clearly integrate approaches sensitive to relevant subpopulations approaches in accordance with UNEG and IOM guidelines. The methodology, methods, tools, and data analysis techniques are expected to consider perspectives of disaggregated relevant populations. In addition, the findings, conclusions and recommendations should reflect analysis of disaggregated pertinent populations.

EDUCATION

• University degree in Community or Public health, Epidemiology, Medicine or other relevant health related discipline from an accredited academic institution with preferred specializations in Research or Evaluations; and minimum of seven (7) years of relevant professional experience; or
• University degree in Community or Public Health, Epidemiology, Medicine or other relevant health related discipline from an accredited academic institution plus master’s degree in Community or Public Health, Epidemiology, Medicine or or other health related fields from an accredited academic institution with preferred specialization in Research or Evaluations with five (5) years of relevant professional experience.

Accredited Universities are those listed in the UNESCO World Higher Education Database.

EXPERIENCE

• Five (5) years of experience in the evaluation of projects and/or programmes in accordance with the United Nations standards and applying the OECD-DAC criteria. The experience must be accredited by means of documents such as final reports, contracts, certificates, etc. 

• Experience working with UN system agencies will be considered an asset, as well as experience in research or evaluation in humanitarian and health-related projects. 

• At least 5 years of evaluation experience with UN agencies programmes and at least 3 years of professional experience in TB prevention programming, ideally in humanitarian or fragile settings. 

• Demonstrated expertise in TB prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, including experience working with national TB programmes and humanitarian health actors.

• Strong understanding of humanitarian health systems, emergency response, and service delivery in crisis contexts.

• Proven experience designing and conducting evaluations, including the application of OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.

• Excellent qualitative research skills, including facilitation of KIIs, FGDs, and participatory consultations. Advanced knowledge and skills in categorization, mapping, mixed methods, and evidence synthesis. 

• Strong analytical and report-writing skills, with a track record of producing high-quality evaluation reports.

• Excellent communication and facilitation skills, with the ability to engage diverse stakeholders at global, national, and community levels.

• Willingness and ability to travel to countries experiencing humanitarian crises.

IMPORTANT NOTES

Scope of Proposal Price and Schedule of Payments

The contract price for this project is a fixed output-based price regardless of extension of the specific duration. The selected consultant is expected to provide a comprehensive budget proposal as part of their submission. This proposal should outline all anticipated costs associated with the evaluation process, including but not limited to:

1. Personnel and Expertise

2. Travel and Accommodation
3. Data Collection and Analysis
4. Reporting and Presentation
5. Unforeseen expenses that may arise during the evaluation process.

The budget proposal should be realistic and transparent. It is the responsibility of the consultant to present a clear breakdown of costs and justify each expense.

Recommended Presentation of Offer

• Submission of CV aligned to the requirements requested in this call.
• Include documents supporting compliance with the requirements of these terms of reference.
• Include the technical and financial proposals. In the technical proposal:
  • Work methodology (approach and methods preliminarily proposed, including sampling strategy and other aspects that are considered relevant). 
  • Description of recent experience in carrying out similar evaluations, with two recent final reports as annexes. 
  • List of references that can provide proof the experience as stated in the Qualifications section
  • Work plan and timeline.

Annexes to the TOR

1. Annex 1 – Inception report template
2. Annex 2 – Evaluation Final Report Template 
3. Annex 3 –  Evaluation Brief Template
4. Annex 4 – Management Response Template

Required Competencies

IOM’s competency framework can be found at this link. Competencies will be assessed during the selection process.

Values - all IOM staff members must abide by and demonstrate these three values:

• Inclusion and respect for diversity: Respects and promotes individual and cultural differences. Encourages diversity and inclusion.
• Integrity and transparency: Maintains high ethical standards and acts in a manner consistent with organizational principles/rules and standards of conduct.
• Professionalism: Demonstrates ability to work in a composed, competent and committed manner and exercises careful judgment in meeting day-to-day challenges.
• Courage: Demonstrates willingness to take a stand on issues of importance.
• Empathy: Shows compassion for others, makes people feel safe, respected and fairly treated.

Core Competencies – behavioral indicators (Level 2)

• Teamwork: Develops and promotes effective collaboration within and across units to achieve shared goals and optimize results.
• Delivering results: Produces and delivers quality results in a service-oriented and timely manner. Is action oriented and committed to achieving agreed outcomes.
• Managing and sharing knowledge: Continuously seeks to learn, share knowledge and innovate.
• Accountability: Takes ownership for achieving the Organization’s priorities and assumes responsibility for own actions and delegated work.
• Communication: Encourages and contributes to clear and open communication. Explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring and motivational way.

Notes

Please refer to this link for guidance on IOM Job Category.

1. Any offer made to the candidate in relation to this vacancy notice is subject to funding confirmation.
2. This selection process may be used to staff similar positions in various duty stations. Recommended candidates will remain eligible to be appointed in a similar position for a period of 24 months.
3. Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment, accreditation, any residency or visa requirements, security clearances.
4. IOM has a zero-tolerance policy on conduct that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of the United Nations and IOM, including sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and discrimination based on gender, nationality, age, race, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic background or disabilities.
5. IOM does not charge a fee at any stage of its recruitment process (application, interview, processing, training or other fee). IOM does not request any information related to bank accounts.
6. IOM only accepts duly completed applications submitted through the IOM e-Recruitment system (for internal candidates link here). The online tool also allows candidates to track the status of their application.
7. No late applications will be accepted. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

For further information and other job postings, you are welcome to visit our website: IOM Careers and Job Vacancies