Sudan is a hub for migrants from across Africa. A country of origin, transit, and destination, it lies at the heart of migratory routes connecting East and West Africa to the Mediterranean Sea and Europe. As of 31st December 2017, an estimated 171,635 refugees and migrants travelled by sea to Europe, with 119,310 recorded arriving in Italy, from Libya, via the Central Mediterranean route. According to the Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat (RMMS), East African irregular migrant arrivals to Europe in 2017 were made up of 7,000 Eritreans, 6,200 Sudanese, 2,522 Somalis, and 690 Ethiopians. Migration flows of predominantly Eritreans, Ethiopians, Sudanese and Somalis follow a north-western route, through Sudan to Libya before Europe. Of those reported dead or missing en route to Europe, 92% used the Central Mediterranean Route, making this the deadliest route so far. There are few opportunities for migrants and refugees to access humanitarian assistance. Irregular migrants and victims of trafficking congregate in hubs along the routes, but there is little to no dedicated service provision available to offer safeguarding support, information and counselling services on the risks ahead because so little is known to date about the composition of the migrant flows. As a result of the reticence of migrants and refugees to approach services, it is a challenge to develop programmatic responses that target whole migration routes with evidence-based responses to provide services and to connect to programs addressing the root causes of unsafe migration in countries of origin.

1. About the Consortium

DRC is a private independent organisation whose aim is to protect refugees and internally displaced persons from persecution and promote lasting solutions to forced displacement. DRC has been operating in Sudan since 2004, in Ethiopia since 2010 and in Libya since 2011 and is present in the main countries of departure and transit along the principal migration routes towards Europe. DRC has been engaged in evidence creation, policy influencing and operational response in relation to mixed migration since 2011, which led to the creation of a global Mixed Migration Centre in 2018, integrating multiple regional Mixed Migration research and advisory structures. Since 2010, DRC has implemented more than 50 projects under DFID funding, delivering integrated multisector assistance to refugees, IDPs and vulnerable migrants. Since 1962, Welthungerhilfe (WHH) has undertaken its activities of development and humanitarian support globally. The organisation supports populations in developing countries with integrated aid, ranging from rapid disaster emergency aid, rehabilitation and resilience programmes and long-term development assistance. WHH has had its presence in Sudan since 1998 and brings its experience on resilience programming, focusing on long-term sustainability and reducing external aid dependency. WHH has field offices in Kassala, Gedaref, Red Sea and North Darfur States of the Republic of Sudan where it is currently implementing projects.

1. The Routes-Based Migration Response programme

The Routes-Based migration response programme is a three-year intervention from October 2018 – October 2021, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) designed to target three aspects of migration through and from Sudan; (i) flows through Sudan toward Europe, (ii) returns to Sudan and (ii) lack of full information about flows and risks. The programme is implemented by a consortium of organizations led by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) which plays an overall leadership role and implements field activities as the grant holder. Its partner includes Welthungerhilfe (WHH) which is implementing programme activities in Kassala and Gedaref and the Mixed Migration Centre (MMC) which has migration monitors in 15 countries globally and is responsible for the research component of the programme.

The programme aims to achieve its impact using an approach informed by the profile of different migrant groups in mixed flows and the diverse and interconnected drivers of migration while paying special attention to migration routes and their variability. The goal of the programme is to contribute to making migration through Sudan safer, with the most vulnerable protected from harm and able to meet their basic needs. This is aimed to be achieved through three outcomes;

• Outcome 1: Migrants, refugees and host communities along the transit routes are protected from harm and are able to meet their basic needs.
• Outcome 2: Migrants, refugees and host communities are benefiting from improved durable solutions.
• Outcome 3: Contribute to evidence-based programming and policy development by governments, humanitarian agencies, and national partners that is responsive to humanitarian and protection needs for people on the move and enhances durable solutions.
• Purpose of the Evaluation

The consortium plans to undertake a comprehensive end-line evaluation to assess effectiveness and appropriateness of the programme, to document outcomes, and to identify lessons learned with a view to inform future programme design. This evaluation will focus on assessing progress made against all the project outputs, outcomes and to capture project impact.

1. Overall Objective

The main objective is to assess actual project achievements against the planned targets and effectiveness to support final reporting and learning. Additionally, it will document reasons for the observed performance and draw lessons that could be used to inform future programming, documented as best practices.

1. Specific objectives of the Evaluation
2. Document evidence-based data which demonstrates that the most vulnerable are protected from harm and able to meet their basic needs, contributing to safer migration. More specifically, complete the following actions related to each programme component:
   1. Highlight the achievements, shortcomings and challenges of protection intervention activities in Khartoum
   2. Demonstrate whether community action planning activities contributed to community development, resilience and cohesion in Gedaref, Kassala and Central Darfur
   3. Evaluate the impact of livelihoods programming on improving households’ ability to meet basic needs in Kassala and Gedaref
   4. Understand how MMC data was used to shape and influence service providers’ strategies as well as government and international organizations’ policy and programme development
3. Review the progress of the Routes-Based Migration Response programme against stated overall impact, outcomes and outputs as stated in the programme logical framework.[1]
4. Identify any gaps or issues that have affected progress towards overall objective and specific objectives, documenting corrective actions and or adaptations undertaken to address these gaps, or where applicable gaps in such corrective actions, presenting lessons learned capable of informing future programming.
5. Document and draw lessons learned, capable of informing future programming, documented as best practices. This should include an analysis on the routes-based approach, and its effectiveness in delivering assistance to persons on the move in Sudan.
6. Provide an analysis on how the programme has addressed Value for Money (VfM).

7. Scope of work:

The scope of work for the consultant will include but is not limited to uncovering the following in the report;

1. Develop/design the evaluation including questionnaire for quantitative/qualitative survey and checklist and tools for group interaction including FGD and KII with consortium partners, beneficiary groups, and relevant stakeholders
2. Share evaluation design including process, methods and questionnaires/checklist with project team, collect feedback and finalize the study design.
3. Orient, train and supervise the enumerators for any questionnaires, FGDs or KIIs developed
4. Carryout field work together with enumerators.
5. Ensure the quality of information collected during the evaluation process, cross check with the validity of information collected and verify/revise where needed.
6. Assess the project achievement against outcome and impact indicators using project data gathered by partners; assess the appropriateness and capacity of outcome and impact indicators to capture achievements of routes-based response programming
7. Describe the actual performance of the project in relation to the achievement of outcomes as listed in the results framework;
8. Were planned outputs delivered, to what degree? If not, why not and what corrective actions were taken?
9. Was the quality of outputs in line with expectations? If not, why not and what corrective actions were taken?
10. How did delivery of outputs contribute to achievement of outcomes as listed in the results framework?
11. Document lessons learned and best practices, with the intention of informing future mixed migration relief programmes.
12. What activities have taken place during the implementation of the project to support the delivery of each output? Is the project anticipated to meet end-term milestones?