An Evaluation of USAID/Ukraine's Countering Trafficking in Persons Program

SCOPE OF WORK AN EVALUATION OF USAID/UKRAINE’S COUNTERING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS PROGRAM I. Background Ukraine is a country with high prevalence of human trafficking. Although the number of trafficked persons is difficult to determine due to the practice’s clandestine nature, experts from the Government of Ukraine Institute for Strategic Research report that more than seven million Ukrainians are working abroad, of which only approximately 500,000 are doing so legally. Various sources, including information received from the victims themselves, suggest that patterns and trends in trafficking in persons are changing, both internally within Ukraine and externally in transit routes to the other regions. It appears that in response to actions taken by the government and local NGOs, traffickers have adjusted their methods of operation in order to avoid detection and increase their profit. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Ukraine has also become a destination country for people from former Soviet republics for forced labor and prostitution. In addition, internal trafficking occurs in Ukraine; with men and women being trafficked within the country for the purposes of labor exploitation in the agriculture, service, and forced begging sectors, as well as for commercial sexual exploitation. Ukrainian children are also trafficked both internally and transnationally for commercial sexual exploitation, forced begging, and involuntary servitude in the agriculture industry. The 2008 Department of State/Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report states that the Government of Ukraine does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, it is making significant efforts to do so. High-ranking officials including the First Lady, Minister of Interior, and the Minister for Family, Youth and Sports have publicly acknowledged that TIP is a very serious problem in Ukraine. Currently, IOM identifies a number of gaps and needs in the national response to trafficking that are critical for the phase-out strategy, such as: lack of governmental ownership of Countering Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) efforts; insufficient governmental funding for CTIP; procedural difficulties of law enforcement investigating TIP cases internationally; financial vulnerability of NGOs and civil society groups; inconsistency of prevention activities in terms of regularity; and demographic and geographic coverage. To meet these needs, IOM has been working with the Ministry for Family, Youth and Sports, the Ministry of Interior, and other governmental agencies to coordinate CTIP efforts; to implement a number of joint initiatives; and to perform effective monitoring and evaluation of CTIP activities nationwide. IOM is lobbying strongly for increase of governmental funding under the State Anti-Trafficking Program. Due to IOM’s efforts, an assessment has been made with the government for establishment of an Assets Confiscation Fund as a source to compensate Victims of Trafficking (VoTs), as well as to fund CTIP efforts in the country. Ukraine is placed on the Department of State’s Annual Trafficking in Persons Report as a Tier II country, with recommendations that the GOU: (1) continue efforts to ensure that convicted traffickers serve significant jail time; (2) take steps to curb complicity by government officials; (3) continue trafficking-specific training for prosecutors and judges; (4) increase funding for victim protection and assistance; and (5) take steps to discourage the demand for commercial sex acts. Since July 2004, USAID has provided approximately $4 million to the International Organization for Migration for the Countering Trafficking in Persons program in Ukraine. The total life-of-project funding is $4,913,815. The end date of the project is July 19, 2009. The IOM CTIP program is engaged with providing effective rehabilitation and reintegration services for victims of trafficking as well as building capacity among state authorities and civil society to combat the trafficking phenomenon. The activities under Countering Trafficking in Persons project contribute to the achievements in Program Objective: Peace & Security, Program Area: Transnational Crime, Program Element: Trafficking in Persons and Migrant Smuggling. Measures to reduce and address trafficking have linkages to other USAID Program Objectives, including: Investing in People, Program Area: Social Services and Protection for Especially Vulnerable Populations. Under this Grant, IOM project objectives include the following: • To assist Ukraine in achieving status as a Tier I country in the United States Department of State's Trafficking in Persons report by 2009; including facilitating the overall phase-out of international anti-trafficking assistance in Ukraine. • To strengthen the ability, technical means, and instrumental base of relevant authorities and civil society to further enhance the reintegration, prevention, and criminalization response on part of Ukrainian counterparts and work to ultimately eradicate trafficking in persons in Ukraine. • To create a powerful and continuing advocacy and monitoring action to improve anti-trafficking related legislation and its enforcement, advance services to victims of trafficking, and expand prevention activities by counter-trafficking groups through a state-owned response. • To research and analyze the underlying aspects and present trends in human trafficking in, from, and to Ukraine, formulate recommendations for corresponding prevention, as well as awareness-raising and reintegration measures. • To coordinate anti-trafficking measures and combine resources of three sectors of Ukrainian society - state bodies, business groups, and civil society organizations in their response to Ukraine’s trafficking problem. II. Evaluation Purpose The principal focus of this evaluation shall be the IOM’s performance in accomplishing the terms and objectives of the Grant Agreement and contributing to the Program Area Transnational Crime and Program Element Trafficking in Persons and Migrant Smuggling. The evaluators shall assess the effectiveness and results of the current project, its successes and weaknesses, and identify any unforeseen constraints and obstacles that may have affected IOM’s performance. A secondary focus is to develop recommendations regarding possible adjustments to enhance the performance under the current Grant Agreement, increase program effectiveness and impact, and ensure the sustainability of program efforts. The evaluators should also provide recommendations for linking USAID program activities to those of other donors and the host government, and for the Mission’s overall strategy in the anti-trafficking area going forward. The Mission’s Democracy and Governance Office – the primary audience for the evaluation – will use the evaluation to make management decisions with respect to its approach and its implementing partner’s activities (such as funding adjustments and/or strategic and tactical changes, as needed). III. Evaluation Questions The evaluation team should use the questions listed below as a guide in formulating findings and recommendations as a result of this evaluation. 1) Is the USAID strategy on the right course? (i.e., is this still the right strategy/approach or should adjustments be made given changes in the overall assistance environment and country-context?). How are goals and objectives of the strategy being achieved and what have the impacts been? What are the major barriers to achieving these goals and how are they being addressed? 2) Are there any significant or critical gaps that require adjustment? (What are the existing gaps in this sector – areas requiring intervention that are not already being addressed by other U.S. government agencies or international/bilateral development agencies)? 3) Specific areas are identified in the State Dept’s TIP Report as reasons for Ukraine’s Tier II ranking. How is the program addressing these issues? 4) Is IOM achieving the objectives, delivering outputs and producing outcomes identified in the Grant Agreement Modification (July 27, 2006)? If not, identify problem areas in program design and implementation and recommend corrective action. Did the intervention yield results other than those planned? Are established targets reasonable given the current project context? If not, how do they need to be modified? 5) Are there opportunities to further leverage USAID resources through increased collaboration with other donor programs? 6) Does a witness assistance mechanism exist? If so, how does it work? If not, what should be done to create it? Is this program effectively working in the areas of economic opportunities for victims of trafficking or gender-based violence? What is the cost-benefit to working in these areas versus other types of CTIP interventions? What are the lessons learned from pursuing CTIP that may be applicable to similar programs elsewhere? 7) Sustainability: How does IOM work on capacity building of its indigenous partners? For each organization clearly define the “end state” (i.e., what the organization will look like at the end of the project), the current status, and what actions will be taken by project end. Identify indicators (or other methodology) that the project is using to measure institutional capacity/sustainability, e.g., how does IOM measure the end state and how do USAID know they are getting there? The evaluators should also examine other indicators of sustainability. For example, is there any indication that the GoU is taking more ownership over anti-TIP activities and that they plan to sustain (especially financially) any components of the USAID program after it ends? What could the program do in its remaining time to increase the likelihood that program outcomes are sustainable? 8) Gender: How does Trafficking in Persons in Ukraine impact men and women differently? Has the current project sufficiently taken these differences into account and effectively addressed them? How has the IOM integrated gender considerations/issues into its USAID-supported activities? 9) Is the program cost-efficient? Are some components more cost-efficient than others? Should components that are not cost-efficient be cut? 10) Do program activities address issues that are unique to child victims of TIP? If not, should they? IV. Team Composition The evaluation team will consist of two people. The team members should have the following qualifications: Team Leader: The team leader must have a professional background in development work in the NIS region and in the implementation of technical assistance in addressing countering trafficking in persons programs. Experience in evaluating effectiveness of measures to reduce trafficking in persons is required. Regional experience and/or country knowledge is required. He/She should have experience managing teams in the field. Highly developed communication skills (both verbal and written), the ability to conduct interviews and facilitate discussions, and experience writing evaluation reports is required. Knowledge of USAID operation and principles is required. Knowledge of USAID/TIP Strategy for Response is desired. Team Member: Experience in conducting evaluations is required. The ability to conduct interviews, facilitate discussions, and write evaluation reports is required. Knowledge of USAID operations and principles is required. The team member should possess experience interacting with host government officials, civil society partners, and members of the development community in a developing country, either on previous evaluations/assessments or as a member of an implementing partner in a development setting. V. Methodology The team is encouraged to propose its own approach/methodology for the evaluation with its response to this scope of work. The methodology is likely to be a combination of site visits; field interviews, focus group meetings and reviews of documentation. Both interviewing and surveying techniques may be used. Documents for review prior to their arrival in Kyiv: USAID Strategy/Trafficking in Persons (February 2003); Trafficking in Ukraine/An Assessment of Current Responses (Kyiv 2005); USAID/Kyiv 2003-2007 Performance Management Plan; Project PMP; Implementing partner (IOM) periodic reports; IOM Grant Agreement (July 2004); IOM Grant Agreement Modification (July 27, 2006); USAID/Kyiv Annual/Performance Reports for FY 2004-2007; Results of the methodology of Measuring and Assessing the Trafficking in Humans in Ukraine (University of Nebraska); Government of Ukraine (2001) Criminal Code of Ukraine. Kyiv: Official Edition; OSCE (2003) Plan for Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings; UNDP (2003) Gender Issues in Ukraine: Challenges and Opportunities; Trafficking in Persons Report/DOS, June 2007. USAID will provide the team with names and contact information of key individuals to be interviewed in Ukraine. Interviewees should include: USAID/Kyiv staff; US Embassy IOM project professional staff; Host country partners USAID program beneficiaries; Other donors in Ukraine; NGO leaders. The Evaluation Team will travel to selected regions to view programs in different parts of Ukraine. Detailed schedules for all site visits and interviews will be developed by the team prior to commencement of fieldwork. VIII. Schedule and Logistics The team shall spend a total of three weeks in Ukraine conducting the evaluation. The evaluation is scheduled to commence on or about November 4, 2008. It will include three days travel time, two days for document review prior to arrival in Ukraine, three weeks in country for collecting and analyzing data and drafting the Evaluation Report; one week from the reception of USAID comments for incorporating USAID comments and drafting Final Report. A six-day workweek is authorized for the team for 21 working days as a total number. The team shall plan to travel throughout Ukraine to view programs and meet with beneficiaries and stakeholders. The Mission envisions the Evaluation Team will travel to different parts of Ukraine (four to six cities) at the outset of the evaluation, and with the final five to six days of the evaluation the team will spend in Kyiv. Detailed schedules for all site visits and interviews should be developed by the Team Leader, in consultation with the Mission’s Democracy and Governance Office. Logistical issues to be resolved in advance include the number of sites to visit, list of host partner institutions to interview, timing of visits, and means of local travel and accommodation. The USAID/Ukraine Mission can provide this point-of-contact information but it is largely incumbent upon the Evaluation Team to develop the schedule and resolve logistical issues prior to its in-country work. The Evaluation Team is authorized to work six days a week for this evaluation while in Ukraine. IX. Deliverables The Evaluation Team shall have an initial orientation meeting to discuss the evaluation plan, which includes relevant USAID mission staff. Prior to the Team Leader’s departure from Ukraine, the Evaluation Team shall debrief the USAID Mission staff on its findings, conclusions and recommendations. The Team Leader shall leave the draft of the Evaluation Report with the Mission before departing Ukraine. The evaluation Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO) will coordinate all stakeholder comments and provide a written response to the Evaluation Team Leader within five business days of receipt of the initial draft. The Final Report shall be prepared by the Team Leader and submitted for USAID/Ukraine review and approval within one week after he/she receives written comments from USAID. The final report and related working documents are the property of USAID, and any use of the material in the report shall require the prior written approval of USAID. The Team Leader shall ensure that the Final Report incorporates and responds to comments from USAID/Kyiv and other stakeholders, and is complete, reads in a holistic manner, and follows the format suggested below. X. Reporting and Dissemination Requirements The final evaluation report shall document the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation. The body of the report should not exceed 40 pages, including an executive summary of no more than two pages; additional details and analysis, if any, should be placed in an appendix. The format of the final report should conform to the following format and guidelines, and contain the following elements: Table of contents Executive summary — Concisely states the main points of the evaluation. Not to exceed two pages in length. Briefly presents major findings, conclusions and recommendations for changes and improvements. Introduction — Summarize the evaluation purpose, audience, and questions. Background — Summarize context in which the project and its components took place, problem addressed, and short description of the project to be evaluated. USAID assistance approach — Describe the USAID program strategy and activities implemented in response to the problem. Findings — Empirical facts collected by the evaluation team related to the evaluation questions. Findings must be supported by relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Not to exceed ten pages in length. Conclusions — Evaluators' interpretations and judgments based on the findings. Not to exceed ten pages in length. Recommendations — Proposed relevant and practical actions for management based on and clearly supported by conclusions. Not to exceed ten pages in length. Lessons learned — Broader implications for similar programs in different settings or for future activities. Unresolved issues — Review what remains to be done or examines unanswered questions. Annexes — Include SOW, Description of evaluation methods used, Data collection instruments, Schedules, Lists of persons contacted/interviewed, Statistical tables, Charts and/or graphs, Bibliography of documents consulted, Glossary of acronyms used. XI. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Proposals are requested by an individual who will serve as team leader, on behalf of a team consisting of two individuals. Proposals must include CV demonstrating required qualifications, cost proposal and proposed schedule.