JOB DESCRIPTION

Job Summary

Position Title: Research Consultant / Team of Research Consultants to Conduct Project Endline Assessment
Duty Station: Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan (remote)
Type of Appointment: Consultancy, Category B, deliverables-based
Duration: December 2025 – February 2026
Closing Date: 07 December 2025, 06:00 pm Bishkek time
These Terms of Reference (ToR) define the scope, objectives, methodology, and deliverables for the Endline Assessment of the Safe Migration of Seasonal Workers from Central Asia to the UK project, implemented by IOM with support from the UK Integrated Security Fund (ISF) between April 2024 and March 2026.

Key Responsibilities

Scope of Work

The endline assessment will be conducted across Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan (December 2025—February 2026). It will cover:

Migrant-Level Outcomes:(Impact Indicator 1): Assess how participation in project activities has improved safety, rights protection, and access to information and support for people migrating under the SWS.Understand migrants’ experiences before departure, during employment in the UK, and after returning home.

Household-Level Outcomes:(Impact Indicator 2): Examine how migration has affected income, savings, investment, and long-term livelihood opportunities.Explore how families have benefited from remittances and whether migration has improved their financial resilience.Explore if/ how seed grant recipients and their families have benefited from financial and business literacy trainings/consultations and seed grants, what worked well and what did not.

System-Level Outcomes:(Impact Indicator 3): Analyse changes in government policies, institutional capacity, and migration governance.Identify how the project has influenced national frameworks for safe migration and reintegration.

Evaluation Population

The evaluation will cover all Central Asian workers who participated in the SWS during the project period—not only IOM beneficiaries—to assess overall progress and IOM’s specific contribution. Contact information will be sourced from Government partners in each country, IOM databases, and possibly SWS operators (where govts are not involved in recruitment of workers).

Methodology and Approach

The endline assessment will use a mixed-methods approach to collect and analyse both quantitative and qualitative data. This will allow for a deeper understanding of the project’s results and provide a comprehensive picture of how and why change occurred. Methodological elements outlined below will guide the final methodology, which the selected consultant may refine during the inception phase in consultation with IOM and FCDO.

The evaluation will examine the broader context in which Central Asian migrants participate in the UK Seasonal Worker Scheme (SWS) — including UK regulations, scheme operator practices, and working and living conditions — to understand the environment in which IOM operates and delivers its interventions. This contextual review will inform the interpretation of findings; however, the evaluation will not assess or judge the SWS itself. The assessment will focus only on outcomes and changes that can reasonably be linked to IOM-supported activities.

a. Quantitative Component (a structured survey)

The quantitative component will measure the extent to which migrants report safe and positive migration experiences and improved socio-economic outcomes associated with participation in SWS.

The sampling frame includes all Central Asian nationals who participated in the SWS during the 2024–2025 seasons (~27,759 individuals). A stratified random sample will be drawn proportionally to the number of migrants from each participating country, ensuring the sample accurately reflects the actual distribution of migrants across key demographic and employment categories (e.g., age, type of employer, recruitment channel, support received).

Note: Access to returned migrants may be uneven, especially for individuals no longer in contact with Scheme Operators or partners. Similarly, identifying a suitable comparison group (SWS-eligible individuals who did not participate in project activities) may not always be feasible. As a result, a fully representative stratified sample may not be achievable. To manage these limitations, the consultant(s) will use flexible and pragmatic sampling methods, such as: using all available contact lists from Scheme Operators, IOM, and partners; applying snowball or respondent-driven sampling where needed; identifying realistic comparison groups where possible; recording any deviations from the sampling plan and assessing their implications. All limitations and their potential effects on findings will be transparently documented in the final evaluation report.

CountryEstimated SWS Participants (2024)Approx. Sample ShareRecommended Sample SizeKyrgyzstan9,842~35%~140Uzbekistan6,278~23%~90–100Tajikistan5,828~21%~80–90Kazakhstan5,811~21%~80–90Total27,759100%~380–420

The target sample size is 380–420 respondents (a 5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level for the overall sample), with at least 80 respondents per country (a margin of error in the range of ±10–11%) to allow for comparisons between countries and between migrants who received IOM support and those who did not.

From the sampling frame, two analytic groups will be distinguished:
(1) Treatment group – Central Asian nationals who participated in clearly defined, project-specific IOM interventions, such as:

• financial or business literacy trainings;
• seed-grant–related business support;
• project-developed PDO, GBV/PSEA, or cultural awareness sessions (not general awareness campaigns).

A clear distinction between project interventions and broader national awareness activities will be maintained in the sampling and in all data-collection tools.

(2) Control group – migrants who did not participate in any IOM project-specific activities but did participate in the SWS. These respondents serve as the comparison group for assessing the added value of project interventions.

Key survey topics include:
• Access to information and pre-departure preparation
• Working and living conditions, rights awareness, and grievance access
• Safety, discrimination, and exploitation experiences
• Income, savings, investment, and reintegration outcomes
• Use and perceived value of IOM and government support services

The exact sample size and stratification are expected to be included in the technical proposals and will be finalized during the inception phase based on power calculations, feasibility, and available contact lists.

b. Qualitative Component

The qualitative part will explore deeper reasons behind the observed changes and provide context for the quantitative findings. The qualitative component will follow a simple, structured flow. First, views will be gathered from key stakeholder groups – returning migrants, Scheme Operators, UK farms and supervisors, recruitment agencies, government representatives, and worker-support organisations – mainly through FGDs with migrants and KIIs with institutional actors. Collected data will be organised under core themes linked to the evaluation questions: (i) access to information and recruitment; (ii) workplace experiences, well-being, and grievance mechanisms; (iii) reintegration, household economic resilience, and mobility; and (iv) perceived usefulness of project-supported materials (e.g. cultural awareness tools, GBV/PSEA guidance, PDO elements).

The evaluation team will then synthesise these insights and triangulate them with survey results to explain why and how changes occurred, clarify differences between groups, and identify contextual factors that shaped outcomes. The final qualitative synthesis will directly inform evaluation judgements, lessons learned, and recommendations for future programming and policy.

Data collection methods:

• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): at least two per country (8 total) with homogenous groups (e.g., migrants, returnees), and one FGD with women per country (at least in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan)
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): overall 15–20 interviews across all four countries with government officials, scheme operators, civil society, recruiters, and migrant representatives
• Separate internal interviews with IOM country teams, including the UK, and regional project team for triangulation, understanding implementation process, and validating findings from external stakeholders and beneficiaries
• Desk review of relevant documents (e.g. government policies, SOPs, and strategic documents developed or influenced by the project)

Note: A set of tailored interview guides will be developed for each stakeholder category (e.g., civil society, scheme operators, recruiters, migrant representatives, and government officials). While some core questions will be consistent across respondents—for example, perceptions of migrant risks, support systems, and policy gaps—each guide will be adapted to reflect the specific role and expertise of the interviewee. Information sought from each category will differ, e.g:

Scheme Operators and UK employers: recruitment processes, workplace conditions, grievance handling, communication with workers, and perceptions of Central Asian workers’ needs.

Recruiters and civil society organisations: fraud risks, referral pathways, support services, and emerging challenges faced by migrants.

Government officials: policy changes, institutional roles, coordination mechanisms, and system-level constraints.

Migrant representatives: collective issues raised by workers, barriers in accessing support, and patterns observed across seasons.

Some of this information may overlap with migrant perspectives, but KIIs are intended to gather institutional and system-level insights that cannot be captured through FGDs alone. FGDs will focus on migrants’ lived experiences, while KIIs will provide contextual, operational, and policy-level information necessary to interpret and triangulate those experiences.

Qualitative data collection will explore the following themes in greater depth:

• Rights and support: Awareness of rights and ability to use complaint or legal support systems.
• Fraud and exploitation: Experiences with scams, abuse, or unsafe working conditions.
• Livelihoods and reintegration: Effects on household income and post-return opportunities.
• Gender dynamics: Gender-specific challenges and coping strategies.
• Institutional support: Effectiveness of services and referral systems, and government/IOM assistance.

c. Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

Qualitative data collection will occur after or in parallel with early survey insights. Initial descriptive survey results will inform qualitative tools to:

• Validate and explain patterns observed in the data
• Explore causal pathways and Theory of Change assumptions
• Understand contextual drivers and unexpected trends
• Triangulate evidence and strengthen credibility

The evaluation team will conduct a rapid preliminary analysis of survey responses to refine FGD/KII guides. IOM country missions will be involved to ensure contextual relevance and accurate interpretation.

Complementarity of Methods

Quantitative Survey (What changed?): Qualitative Research (Why and how did it change?)

Safety & exploitation: Explore specific mechanisms, scams, experiences

Economic outcomes: Understand how savings are used/constraints

Use of services: Understand barriers and effectiveness

Rights awareness: Explore confidence, enforcement, real-life use

Gender patterns: Understand norms and constraints

d. Endline Questions (what we ask)

The questions are structured around the three main impact areas established in the project document and key cross-cutting issues.

A. Safety and Rights Protection(Project Impact area 1): To what extent do Central Asian migrants report that their migration journey — from pre-departure to employment in the UK and post-return — was positive, safe, and rights-based?How and to what extent did the project contribute to reducing fraud, misinformation, exploitation, and unsafe conditions?Are migrants better informed about their rights, aware of GBV risks, and able to access support or complaint mechanisms when needed? What factors helped or limited these outcomes?

B. Livelihood and Socio-Economic Outcomes(Project Impact area 2): Within the broader SWS context, to what extent have Central Asian migrants reported improvements in income, savings, investment opportunities, or financial stability after their migration? How do IOM-supported interventions appear to contribute to these outcomes?Among returning migrants, what proportion have achieved more sustainable livelihoods after their migration experience, and in what ways has IOM support (e.g., information, training, reintegration assistance) helped enable these improvements? Did financial literacy trainings, business consultations and seed grants help grant recipients to improve their socio-economic well-being – and if so, in what ways?What is the proportion of sustainable businesses to date; what worked well and what did not in promoting sustainable businesses?How has participation in the SWS shaped long-term household economic resilience and mobility for Central Asian migrants, and which factors — including IOM-supported services, local labour market conditions, and family/household context — have enabled or constrained these changes? Note: The evaluation will examine whether short-term earnings from the SWS result in long-term development benefits. To understand this, it will focus on two key areas:1. Economic resilience – This means how well migrant households can cope with financial problems after returning home — such as illness, losing a job, or rising prices. Strong resilience shows that SWS earnings helped reduce vulnerability to debt, exploitation, or the need to migrate again under unsafe conditions.2. Economic mobility – This refers to whether participation in the SWS helped families improve their financial situation over time. Examples include higher or more stable income, more diverse sources of livelihood, savings and assets, or successful small business investments.The evaluation will also examine what supports or limits these improvements — such as IOM training and services, local job opportunities, or family factors — to help guide how future IOM programmes can better support returnees and their reintegration.

C. Policy and Systemic Change(Project Impact area 3): To what extent has the project supported the creation or adoption of new policies, programmes, SOPs, or institutional practices that promote safe migration and reintegration?What institutional mechanisms or partnerships have been developed that strengthen rights protection and regular migration pathways?How sustainable are these policy or system changes, and what additional steps could ensure they continue beyond the project’s lifetime?

D. Cross-Cutting Themes and Learning: The endline assessment will also examine several cross-cutting issues to deepen understanding of the changes observed and to inform future programming.How effectively has the project addressed gender-specific risks and barriers throughout the migration process? The assessment will compare experiences and outcomes between men and women where data allow. The evaluator will identify factors contributing to any differences (e.g., access to information, recruitment channels, employment type, household responsibilities) and assess what lessons were learned in overcoming gender-related constraints. What recommendations can be made to strengthen gender mainstreaming in future programming?Are the results achieved likely to last over time, and under what conditions? The evaluator will identify key risks to sustainability—contextual, institutional, financial, and behavioural—and outline practical mitigation considerations to inform future programming.What key contextual and operational challenges affected project delivery, and how did the project adapt its activities in response? How did these adaptations influence the relevance, effectiveness, or sustainability of the results?What practical lessons and emerging best practices from project adaptations and implementation can inform future policies and programme design in participating countries? What gaps or unmet needs remain for future programming (e.g., stakeholder capacities, coordination mechanisms, or support services), and how could they be addressed in future phases?What approaches or partnerships could strengthen future programming and enhance cooperation among participating countries (e.g., bilateral, regional, or scheme-level collaboration)?

Analytical Framework (how we answer the questions)

The analytical framework will guide how the endline assessment interprets data, draws conclusions, and links project activities to the observed changes. It will focus on three main dimensions: impact, causal contribution, and sustainability – helping to explain what changed, how/why it changed, and whether those changes will last.

Impact The assessment will first measure the long-term changes that have taken place in migrant safety, rights protection, economic well-being, and migration governance over the course of the project. It will compare current conditions with the situation prior to project participation (reconstructed baseline) and, where possible, with changes observed during the project cycle. It will examine whether these outcomes align with the project’s intended impact and how widespread they are across different countries and demographic groups.

1. What significant changes in migrant safety, livelihoods, and policies have occurred as a result of the project?
2. How do these changes compare with the situation before the project began?
3. What unintended positive or negative outcomes emerged during or after implementation?

Causal Contribution

The second step will analyse the pathways through which the project contributed to these changes. It will explore how project inputs (such as training, information campaigns, or policy support) led to outcomes and impact, and what external factors also played a role.

1. How did specific project activities influence the results observed?
2. What contextual, institutional, or behavioural factors enabled or limited change?
3. How do different elements of the Theory of Change (e.g. knowledge → behaviour → outcomes) explain the results?

Sustainability of ImpactFinally, the assessment will assess the likelihood that the outcomes will continue beyond the project’s lifetime. It will look at whether new policies, practices, and behaviours are embedded in systems and whether migrants and institutions are better prepared for future migration cycles.

1. Which results are likely to last without ongoing project support?
2. What systems, partnerships, or institutional changes have been established to sustain them?
3. What additional steps are needed to strengthen long-term impact?

Addressing Lack of Original Baseline

As no formal baseline was conducted at project start (and impact indicators were revised in Year 3), baseline conditions will be partially reconstructed using:

• Recall questions in the endline survey aligned with key indicators (e.g., status before departure/PDO)
• Use of administrative and monitoring data collected over the project period. IOM and government partners will facilitate access to migrant contact lists, administrative data, and relevant project records required for sampling, recruitment, and verification purposes.
• Triangulation with qualitative evidence (FGDs, KIIs, case studies) Where full before-and-after comparison is not possible, contribution analysis and Theory-of-Change testing will be applied, with limitations transparently documented.

Theory-of-Change testing: ToC testing examines whether each step in the project’s logic — from activities to impact — occurred as intended. Check whether the logical pathway (PDO → knowledge → safer migration → better outcomes → stronger systems) happened in practice, where it worked and where it didn’t.Did activities happen as planned?Did they produce the expected outputs?Did those outputs lead to real change?Did the change happen for the reasons we thought?Were there steps missing or new pathways?Did anything unexpected happen?

Contribution analysis: Explores whether observed changes can reasonably be linked to the project, while recognizing other influencing factors. If migrants who received PDO support show higher rights awareness and safer migration practices than those who did not — and interviews confirm the project helped — we can reasonably say the project contributed to safer migration. Look at what changed (outcomes)Check whether those changes align with what the project didCollect evidence from surveys, interviews, documents, and contextCheck whether other factors may have influenced the changeAssess how plausible it is that the project contributed to the results

Illustrative causal testing examples

ToC stepEvaluation questionEvidencePDO deliveredDid migrants receive accurate pre-departure information?Attendance data, materialsKnowledge increasedDid they understand rights & procedures?Knowledge scores, recallSafer behaviourDid they apply safe migration practices?Verified contracts, hotline useImproved outcomesDid they experience safer conditions & better earnings?Survey data, remittance useSystem changeDid institutions improve safe migration support?Policy docs, stakeholder interviews

The evaluation will not assert direct causation (the project caused all changes) but will examine plausible and evidence-supported contribution to observed outcomes.

Deliverables and Timeline

The endline assessment will be conducted over a three-month period (December 2025 – February 2026). All deliverables must be submitted in English and meet IOM’s quality, reporting, and data protection standards. Once implementation starts with the selected consultant/service provider, some final adjustments to the methodology and data collection tools may be made during the inception phase, in coordination with IOM.

DeliverableDescriptionDeadline

1. Inception Report (including final methodology note, Survey Tools and Data Collection Instruments

Short inception report, including final versions of the quantitative survey, FGD and interview guides, consent forms, and fieldwork protocols, developed in consultation with IOM and approved before data collection begins. Data collection tools and interviews will be administered in relevant local languages. The selected consultant(s) are responsible for translation, back-translation, and culturally appropriate adaptation of tools.22 December 2025

1. Validation Workshop / Presentation

Presentation of draft findings and recommendations to IOM, donor, and government partners for feedback and validation (online or in-person).10 February 2026

1. Draft Report

Draft report presenting analysis of quantitative and qualitative findings, triangulated results, and initial recommendations.15 February 2026

4. Final Report

Final report (max. 50 pages, excluding annexes) incorporating all feedback. Must include an executive summary, methodology, limitations, findings linked to the Theory of Change and impact indicators, conclusions, recommendations, and annexes (tools, data summary, etc.).27 February 2026

Indicative Timeline

ActivityDec 2025Jan 2026Feb 2026Phase 1: Inception & Design Kick-off meeting and desk reviewWeek 3 Finalization of tools and sampling frameworkWeek 4 Phase 2: Data Collection Quantitative survey rollout Weeks 2–3 FGDs and KIIs implementation Weeks 2–4 Data cleaning and quality assurance Week 4 Phase 3: Analysis & Reporting Data analysis and triangulation Weeks 1–2Validation workshop Week 3Submission of draft report Week 3Submission of final report Week 4

Reporting and Supervision

The consultant(s) will work in close coordination with relevant IOM country offices and partners.

• IOM Kyrgyzstan Office – Lead on regional coordination, donor liaison (FCDO/ISF), and overall reporting.
• IOM Country Offices in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – Support data collection, provide national context, and facilitate engagement with local stakeholders.
• IOM UK Mission – Provide technical guidance on the Seasonal Worker Scheme and facilitate contact with UK-based partners and stakeholders

Required Qualifications

Qualifications and Experience

• Advanced university degree in social sciences, development studies, economics, or a related field.
• At least 5 years of experience in evaluation design, data collection, analysis, and reporting for international development or migration-related projects.
• Demonstrated experience in conducting impact evaluations using mixed-methods approaches.
• Strong understanding of migration dynamics and policy environments in Central Asia.

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 – behavioural indicators

• 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.

Submission Requirements and Criteria

Interested individual consultant or a team of consultants are invited to submit a technical and financial proposal in English by 07 December, 2025, 18:00 Bishkek time.

A. Technical Proposal

• Understanding of the assignment and proposed methodology.
• Proposed sampling strategy, data collection approach, and analysis plan.
• Work plan and timeline aligned with deliverables and timeline.
• Anticipated limitations and mitigation strategies.
• CV(s) highlighting relevant qualifications and similar research experience.
• References from at least two previous clients

B. Financial Proposal

A detailed budget (in USD) covering all costs associated with the assignment, including professional fees, travel, data collection, translation, and other relevant expenses. Budget should be inclusive of all taxes and fees.

11. Contracting and Payment Terms

The selected consultant(s) 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 outlined below: 20% – upon submission and IOM approval of final survey tools, data collection instruments, and sampling framework, and 80% – upon submission and IOM acceptance of the final Impact Evaluation Report, including all required annexes and data.

12. Ethical Considerations and Data Protection

The endline is to adhere strictly to the IOM Data Protection Principles[1] and the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) Ethical Guidelines[2]. All data and materials collected shall remain the property of IOM. Raw data, analysis files, and codebooks must be submitted with the final report.

[1] IOM Data Protection Principles: https://www.iom.int/data-protection

[2] UNEG Ethical Guidelines: https://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/102