Consultancy, External Evaluation of the Action “Protecting and Supporting At-Risk Communities in Eastern Ukraine: Multisectoral Humanitarian Assistance and Preparedness” in ActionAid International

1. Background and Context 

ActionAid is a global federation working for a world free from poverty and injustice. With operations in over 45 countries, ActionAid adopts a human rights-based approach to its programming, focusing on supporting at-risk populations, advancing feminist and decolonial humanitarian action, strengthening civic engagement, and advocating for structural changes that challenge systemic inequalities. ActionAid’s humanitarian response framework prioritises localisation, feminist leadership, resilience-building, and intersectionality, ensuring that responses to crises are inclusive, accountable, and rights-holder-led.

 In humanitarian crises, ActionAid’s Humanitarian Signature focuses on: 

• Shifting the Power to locally led responses, ensuring that communities affected by crises - especially women-led organisations, youth movements, and grassroots networks - are at the centre of humanitarian decision-making. 

• A Feminist and Intersectional Approach, ensuring gender-responsive and survivor-centred programming, with a strong emphasis on protection, accountability, and resilience. The feminist approach needs to be a specific approach but also part of the methodology, taking into account ActionAid’s Ten Principles of Feminist Leadership and ActionAid's feminist research guidelines. 

• Strengthening Rights Holders’ Agency, enabling national actors to take leadership roles in response and recovery. 

ActionAid, a DG ECHO Humanitarian Partnership Certificate (HPC) holder through its Spanish entity ActionAid Spain, is leading a 12-month consortium Action in Eastern Ukraine (01 April 2025 – 31 March 2026) in partnership with HelpAge International (HAI) and local organisations, including M.ART.IN-Club, East SOS, Volunteer-68, Memory 86 and Pomogaem. 

The Action focuses on: Protection-centred life-saving assistance to newly displaced IDPs, including through evacuations, GBV response, home-based care, psychosocial support and targeted assistance (assistive devices, hygiene distribution and winterization cash provided specifically to vulnerable people (including but not limited to IDPs, those with limited mobility, the elderly, etc.) across Zaporizka, Donetska, Dnipropetrovska and Kharkivska oblasts. 

The Action aims to reach approximately 12,000 direct beneficiaries that are vulnerable people at risk, including internally displaced persons (IDPs) and highly at-risk groups including older people and persons with disabilities, with a strong focus on women and people at heightened GBV risk. 

2. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation 

2.1 Overall Purpose

 The overall purpose of the evaluation is to provide an independent, evidence-based assessment of the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency (including Value for Money, VfM), and where feasible, its impact and connectedness, in line with OECD-DAC criteria.

 In line with ActionAid’s internal standards and best practices, the evaluation will also unpack whether the Action met ActionAid’s internal best practices and sector standards about localised action and equitable partnerships, as well as accountability towards affected populations (AAP).

 The evaluation will generate practical lessons learned and actionable recommendations for ActionAid, consortium partners and DG ECHO, to inform adaptive management during implementation and future humanitarian programming in Ukraine, with particular attention to identifying clear pathways to improve Protection activities and results in the long-term.

 2.2 Specific Objectives 

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to: 

• Relevance: Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the Action’s design, targeting, and delivery modalities in relation to evolving humanitarian needs and risks in Eastern Ukraine, including the extent to which the Action aligns with the DG ECHO Humanitarian Implementation Plan (HIP) for Ukraine, as well as with relevant cluster guidance, and national/local systems (e.g., evacuation coordination mechanisms). 

• Coherence: Examine how well the Action is coherent internally across consortium partners and components, and externally with other actors and systems, including complementarity with the wider humanitarian response architecture (clusters, coordination mechanisms) and consistency in applying cross-cutting standards and commitments (protection mainstreaming; gender, age and disability inclusion; AAP/CFMs; safeguarding and PSEA/H risk management; and ethical data protection).

 • Effectiveness: Assess performance against the Action’s specific objective, results and indicators as defined in the DG ECHO Single Form and logframe, including progress toward outputs and outcomes, coverage, timeliness, and quality. This includes examining the effectiveness of key components-protection response (evacuations, GBV response including CRSV-related risks where relevant, PSS, and home-based care and targeted assistance for persons with disabilities and older people). 

• Efficiency: Assess the efficiency and value for money (VfM) of the Action using a clear VfM framework (economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and equity), including analysis of major cost drivers, timeliness and delivery processes, unit costs where feasible, and the relationship between costs, reach, and quality across modalities and partners. 

• Impact (where feasible): Where feasible given the humanitarian context and available evidence, assess the Action’s contribution to meaningful changes for affected people and vulnerable rights holders, including older people, persons with disabilities, and other at-risk groups. This will focus on outcome-level effects linked to protection and safety, access to essential support and services, reduced exposure to risks (including GBV/CRSV-related risks where relevant). 

• Cross-cutting issue: Lessons learned and recommendations 

Across all OECD-DAC criteria, identify good practices and lessons learned, and provide strategic, prioritised, actionable recommendations to strengthen localised, accountable and inclusive humanitarian programming (including protection mainstreaming, GEDI, AAP/CFMs, safeguarding/PSEA/H, and ethical data protection) for older people, persons with disabilities and other at-risk groups in Eastern Ukraine.

 • Cross-cutting issue: Localisation and partnerships framework: Review ActionAid’s localisation approach within the project, including its relevance, participatory management and implementation, equitable partnerships approach within the project, and best practices, as well as capacity assessment and development of partners, sharing the power principles, partner mental health and well-being.

 3. Scope of the Evaluation 

3.1 Timeline 

• Implementation period assessed: 01 April 2025 – 31 March 2026 (full Action duration). 

3.2 Geographic Scope

 The evaluation will cover, at minimum, a representative sample of the main areas of implementation across:

 • Oblasts: Dnipropetrovska, Zaporizka, Kharkivska (and, where feasible and safe, Donetska; final selection subject to access, security and ethical considerations). 

• Types of locations: urban hubs (e.g. Dnipro, Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia), rural hromadas and key transit centres. 

Final selection of sites will depend on security, access and ethical considerations, and will be agreed with AA and partners. 

3.3 Thematic Scope 

The evaluation will cover the full Action, including at least the following: 

a) Result 1 – Protection 

• Community-based protection and initiative groups. 

• Evacuations and social taxi support for people with disabilities and older persons.

 • GBV, including CRSV, case management (including cash for protection), and psychosocial support. 

• Home-based care and individualized assistance (assistive devices, rehabilitation aids, hygiene kits, adult diapers, etc.) for people with specific vulnerabilities.

 • Winterization cash for clothing for evacuees.

 b) Cross-cutting areas 

• Gender & Age Marker implementation (GAM).

 • AAP and CFMs, including safeguarding, GBV and PSEAH risk management. 

• Data protection and ethical data management.

 4. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions 

The evaluation will be guided by questions on the relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness and impact, as well as ECHO priorities on protection mainstreaming, AAP and localisation.

 The final evaluation matrix will be developed at inception, but indicative questions are: 

4.1 Relevance and Coherence 

• To what extent does the Action respond to the identified needs and priorities vulnerable people in targeted oblasts? 

• How well does the Action align with ECHO’s Humanitarian Implementation Plan for Ukraine, and relevant cluster guidance and national/ local systems (e.g. social services, evacuation coordination mechanisms)? 

• Are activities and modalities appropriate and adapted to the context, including changing conflict dynamics and seasonal needs? 

4.2 Effectiveness 

• To what extent have the specific objective, planned results and indicators been achieved (or are likely to be achieved)? 

• To what extent has the Action contributed to: 

o Perceived safety, dignity, and accountability of the Action.

 o Successful relocation of people with reduced mobility and other high-risk groups, and the effectiveness of coordination with local and national authorities in relation to evacuations. 

o Improved psychosocial wellbeing and coping capacities of beneficiaries. 

o Coverage and quality of services for GBV survivors and women at higher risk and effectiveness of the action in complementing/filling gaps in services and assistance offered by national, governmental GBV protection mechanisms 

• How effective are community-based protection mechanisms and initiative groups in identifying, preventing and responding to protection risks? 

4.3 Efficiency and Value for Money 

The VfM analysis should apply a clear framework covering economy (inputs), efficiency (outputs), effectiveness (outcomes), and equity (who benefits), considering timeliness and quality. It should triangulate unit costs, cost drivers and benchmarks (where available), and interpret findings considering access and operating constraints. 

• How efficiently have financial, human, and logistical resources been used to deliver outputs and outcomes (e.g., cost per beneficiary, timeliness of evacuations, delivery)? 

• Are there notable differences in efficiency across partners, geographic areas or intervention types (e.g., cash vs in-kind, home-based care vs institutional support)? What explains these differences?

 • Were management and coordination structures proportionate to the scale and complexity of the Action? 

• Where have the greatest returns on investment been observed, and what trade-offs were made between reach, quality and timeliness?

 4.4 Impact (Where Measurable) 

• What observable positive or negative effects (intended or unintended) has the Action had on: 

o The safety, dignity and wellbeing of targeted groups? 

o Local systems (social services, community structures) and social cohesion? 

• Have any wider changes been observed in knowledge, attitudes or practices in relation to protection, GBV, inclusion and preparedness? 

4.5 Sustainability and Localization 

ActionAid’s partner-led model places national civil society organisations (CSOs) at the centre of humanitarian action, ensuring that crisis response is owned and driven by Ukrainian actors rather than external agencies. This evaluation will examine how well ActionAid has supported and sustained local partner leadership, whether partners have been able to build long-term capacity, and how humanitarian coordination structures have shifted in favour of locally led responses.

 • How has the consortium model supported meaningful localization, decision-making power of local partners, and peer-to-peer learning?

 • To what extent have local partner organisations been able to lead, design, and implementhumanitarian interventions? 

• Has ActionAid’s funding and capacity-strengthening approach enabled partners to become more sustainable, independent, and resilient in the face of ongoing crisis? 

• Are there specific challenges with regards participation and representation of women and young people in the humanitarian coordination and funding structures in Ukraine? Have gendered power dynamics and relations played a role in these spaces? 

• Are there best practices that can be replicated or scaled to strengthen localisation in other humanitarian settings? 

4.6 Protection, Gender, Age, Disability and AAP 

• How effectively has the Action integrated protection mainstreaming, GBV (and, it possible CRSV) risk mitigation and response, and disability inclusion into design and implementation?

 • Are AAP and CFM systems accessible, trusted and used by diverse groups (older people, persons with disabilities, women, minorities)? 

• How have complaints, feedback and suggestions influenced programme decisions and adaptations? 

• To what extent has ActionAid’s programming been gender-responsive or transformative?

 • To what extent have women, older persons and PWDs been involved in programme design, implementation, and leadership? 

• How has the Action addressed intersectional vulnerabilities risks, such as the compounded risks faced by displaced women with disabilities in conflict settings?

 • Has the Action effectively reduced protection risks and discrimination faced by marginalised groups?

 • Are there any unintended negative consequences or gaps in inclusion that need to be addressed?

 5. Evaluation Methodology 

The evaluation will be conducted using a mixed-methods approach including combining both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, to ensure comprehensive, triangulated findings. The methodology will be participatory, inclusive, gender-sensitive, and rights-based, with a strong emphasis on accountability to affected populations and learning for programme improvement. 

As a minimum, the methodology should include:

 5.1 Document Review 

Review of key documents, including but not limited to: 

• ECHO Single Form (and any modification requests) and logframe. 

• Project agreements, MEAL plans, SOPs (for evacuation, GBV case management, CFMs, etc.). 

• Partner narrative and financial reports, monitoring reports, PDM surveys, CFM/feedback logs, etc.). 

5.2 Quantitative Methods 

• Secondary analysis of existing monitoring and survey data, including: 

o ECHO PMKOI indicators. 

o Custom perception indicators. 

o Beneficiary disaggregation (gender, age, disability, displacement status, etc.).

 • Where feasible and ethical, short, structured surveys with a sample of beneficiaries and/or community members (in person or remotely). 

5.3 Qualitative Methods

• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs; offline and online where applicable) with:

o AA and HAI staff (programme, MEAL, finance, management).

 o National and International partner staff and volunteers. 

o Representatives of community-based protection groups. 

• Direct observation (where safe and appropriate) of: 

o Facilities and transit centres. 

o Home-based care visits.

 o Display of CFM information and other accountability tools. 

5.4 Sampling 

• Sampling should ensure representation across vulnerable groups, partner organisations and locations. 

• Both purposive and, where possible, random selection methods may be used. 

• The evaluator must clearly explain sampling choices, limitations and implications for data interpretation. 

The final sampling plan, including the sample size, is developed jointly with the evaluation team during the inception phase, considering available data, timeframes, and program priorities. 

5.5 Ethics, Safeguarding and Data Protection 

The evaluation must:

 • Respect Conflict-Sensitivity principles.

 • Comply with AA and partners’ safeguarding, PSEAH, GBV and child protection policies and referral pathways. 

• Ensure informed consent, confidentiality and secure data storage in line with GDPR and AA requirements. 

• Take particular care with GBV-related and highly sensitive information; individual interviews with survivors may only be conducted where safe, ethical and linked to appropriate referral mechanisms. 

5.6 Limitations and Risk Management 

The methodology should identify and address potential constraints such as: 

• Security and access restrictions. 

• Potential response bias or data gaps. 

Mitigation measures may include remote interviews, flexible data collection plans, triangulation of data sources, and clear acknowledgment of limitations in the report.

 6. Deliverables

 The evaluator will provide the following deliverables: 

• Inception Report (max. 15 pages) 

o Refined evaluation matrix (criteria, key questions, indicators, data sources). 

o Detailed methodology, sampling and tools. 

o Ethical and safeguarding approach. 

o Workplan and updated timeline. 

• Data Collection Tools (annexes) 

o Interview guides, survey questionnaires (in English and Ukrainian where relevant). 

• Draft Evaluation Report (approx. 35–45 pages excluding annexes)

 o Executive Summary (3-4 pages). 

o Context and description of the Action. 

o Methodology and limitations. 

o Findings structured by evaluation criteria and key questions. 

o Conclusions. 

o Prioritised, actionable recommendations, clearly indicating responsible actors and timelines. 

o Good practices and lessons learned. 

• Final Evaluation Report 

o Revised version incorporating feedback from AA, partners and, where relevant, DG ECHO. 

o Submitted in both tracked changes and clean versions. 

• Two-Page Learning Brief & Presentation

 o Concise, accessible summary of key findings and recommendations for external sharing (donors, partners, local stakeholders). 

o Develop a short presentation (Power Point) highlighting key points, findings, and recommendations, tailored to external audiences. 

All deliverables will be submitted in English. Short summaries in Ukrainian may be requested and, if required, will be agreed in the contract. 

7. Indicative Timeline and Level of Effort 

(Exact dates to be agreed.) 

Illustrative timeline: • Preparation and inception phase: 

10 days • Data collection (field and remote): 10 days.

 • Analysis and drafting: 10 days. 

• Review and finalisation: 5 days. 

Estimated level of effort: approximately 35 working days for the evaluation team, depending on scope, access and security conditions. 

8. Requirements

 The consultant should meet the following requirements:

 Essential (Mandatory)

 Experience & track record:

 • Minimum 10 years of experience in humanitarian programme evaluation, research, and impact assessment in conflict-affected and displacement settings. 

• Proven track record delivering evaluations for international NGOs and/or donor-funded programmes, especially in emergency response, protection, and resilience-building.

 • Demonstrated experience working with major humanitarian donors and solid knowledge of their evaluation and reporting frameworks. 

• Strong experience conducting evaluations in high-risk / rapidly evolving contexts, including conflict settings. 

Technical & thematic expertise:

• Deep understanding of conflict-sensitive programming, Do No Harm, and humanitarian accountability frameworks, the localization agenda and equitable partnership. 

• Strong experience analysing and evaluating cash assistance, GBV programming, and community-based protection models. 

• Practical knowledge of AAP, CFMs, safeguarding, and PSEAH in humanitarian settings. 

Methodological skills:

Advanced mixed-methods research skills, including demonstrated experience with:

 • KIIs (local CSOs, humanitarian actors) 

• Survey design, data collection, and impact measurement 

• Financial analysis and value-for-money assessments 

Context, language & delivery:

• Extensive experience working in Ukraine/Eastern Europe contexts, with strong understanding of Ukraine’s humanitarian and civil society landscape.

 • Fluency in English. 

• Excellent analytical, facilitation, and report-writing skills in English; ability to produce clear, actionable evaluation reports for diverse audiences. 

• Strong communication and presentation skills. • Ability to work independently while collaborating closely with ActionAid Eastern Europe and consortium partners in a participatory, co-created process. 

Desirable

 • Prior experience evaluating ECHO-funded actions (and familiarity with ECHO approaches/requirements). 

• Expertise in participatory, feminist, and intersectional research methodologies (beyond general participatory approaches), with strong evidence of meaningful community and partner engagement. 

• Previous security training and first aid certification/training. 

• Additional demonstrated experience designing and implementing evaluations in politically complex environments with high stakeholder sensitivity. 

9. Operational Aspects, Budget and Payment Schedule 

9.1 Operations & Logistics 

AA and partners will:

 • Provide all relevant documentation and data. 

• Facilitate introductions to key stakeholders and comminuties.

 • Support logistics (booking of transport, security briefings, translation/interpretation) within agreed limits and in line with security rules. 

The evaluator will be responsible for:

 • Their own insurance and personal security arrangements. 

• Visas and work permits where required. 

• Ensuring that any local research assistants are appropriately trained and supervised.

 9.2 Budget and Payment Schedule

The evaluation will be contracted on a lump-sum basis, covering:

 • Professional fees.

 • Any travel and accommodation costs.

 • Interpretation, translation, transcription and other research-related costs. 

• Any other agreed incidentals. 

The detailed budget will be included in the contract and must be consistent with the ECHO budget line for external evaluations.

 Indicative payment schedule (to be confirmed in the contract): 

• 30% upon signature of the contract and approval of the Inception Report. 

• 40% upon submission of a satisfactory Draft Evaluation Report. 

• 30% upon AA approval of the Final Evaluation Report and Learning Brief. 

10. Application Process 

Interested candidates should submit the following: 

• Technical Proposal (maximum ficve pages), outlining:

 o Understanding the evaluation objectives and key themes. 

o Proposed methodology, research approach, and a realistic work plan.

 o Sampling strategy and risk mitigation plan. 

o Ethical considerations and approach to participatory evaluation with rights holders. 

• Financial Proposal, including detailed budget breakdown for the consultancy period, inclusive of all travel expenses (including but not limited to flights, trains, local transport, translators, accommodation, insurances, per diems etc.) as well as all applicable taxes. 

• Two professional references from previous evaluations conducted for INGOs, UN agencies, or major donors. 

• An overview table listing similar assignments undertaken in the last five years, including information on the donor, sector, country, project size (EUR), description of assignment, and any other relevant information. 

Submission Details

Please send the full package of documents as one combined pdf in English to [email protected] with the reference Ukraine – Action Evaluation. 

Applications should be sent as soon as possible and will be considered on a rolling basis.

 _ 

This offer is contingent upon pending funding applications for the role. ActionAid conducts thorough reference checks and screens service providers before making an offer. Due to high volumes of applications received, ActionAid can only correspond with short-listed applicants. Should you not have received feedback on your application within two weeks of the closing date, please consider your application as unsuccessful. ActionAid will not consider unsolicited candidates from recruitment agencies. ActionAid reserves the right to modify, re-announce, or withdraw any of our vacancies at any time. ActionAid is committed to recruiting candidates who promote ActionAid’s SHEA and Safeguarding policies and values and will only recruit candidates who are committed to SHEA and Safeguarding and ActionAid’s values, thereby helping to create safer working cultures. ActionAid collects and processes personal data relating to job applicants as part of any recruitment process. ActionAid is committed to being transparent about how we collect and use that data and to meeting our data protection obligations. Please visit our website https://actionaid.org/privacy-and-cookies or click the link Privacy notices to view our GDPR Privacy notice.

List of Acronyms

 AA EE     ActionAid Eastern Europe 

AAP         Accountability to Affected Populations 

CFM        Complaints and Feedback Mechanism

CRSV      Conflict-Related Sexual Violence 

CSO        Civil Society Organisation 

DAC        OECD Development Assistance Committee 

DG ECHO   European Commission Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations 

DRR         Disaster Risk Reduction / Disaster Preparedness 

FGD         Focus Group Discussion GAM Gender and Age Marker 

GBV         Gender-Based Violence 

GDPR      General Data Protection Regulation 

HAI          HelpAge International 

HPC         Humanitarian Partnership Certificate 

IDP           Internally Displaced Person

INGO       International Non-Governmental Organisation 

KII            Key Informant Interview 

MEAL       Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning 

MR           Modification Request 

NFI           Non-Food Item 

PDM         Post-Distribution Monitoring 

PSEA/PSEAH    Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse / and Sexual Harassment PSS          Psychosocial Support 

PwD         Person with Disability 

ToR          Terms of Reference 

VfM          Value for Money