Job Description

Background and Study Justification

UNFPA works to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe, and every

young person’s potential is fulfilled. Guided by its Strategic Plan (2026–2030), the agency

focuses on ending the unmet need for family planning, preventing maternal deaths, and

eliminating gender-based violence (GBV) and harmful practices—with a particular focus on

women, adolescents, and youth in humanitarian settings. Key operational strategies in this

framework include Women and Girls Safe Spaces and One-Stop Centers (OSCs). In Liberia,

the Government and UNFPA, along with development partners, have established OSCs as a

cornerstone of the national GBV response. The model brings medical care, psychosocial

support, legal aid, police protection, and referral services under a single roof to deliver

timely, confidential, survivor-centered care.

In 2025, UNFPA commissioned an independent evaluation of the OSC model to assess its

contribution to GBV response systems, survivor care, and future policy decisions. Guided

by the UNEG Norms and Standards, the UNFPA Evaluation Policy (2024), and

OECD-DAC criteria, the evaluation aimed to generate strategic evidence to inform future

programming and sustainability.

However, a technical review and data gap analysis of the draft report revealed significant

analytical and evidence gaps. While the draft offered useful qualitative insights, it fell short

of the mixed-methods approach outlined in the original Terms of Reference. Key

conclusions lacked empirical support, with major gaps in service utilization trends, referral

pathways, operational efficiency, survivor outcomes, value for money, and long-term

sustainability. These weaknesses stemmed primarily from a lack of quantitative rigor,

insufficient triangulation, underutilized administrative data, and weak financial analysis.

Rather than commissioning an entirely new evaluation, this assignment addresses these

specific gaps. It focuses on reconstructing missing evidence, analyzing available

administrative and program data, validating initial qualitative findings, and delivering the

robust, credible evidence base needed to evaluate OSC performance and sustainability

effectively.

Purpose and objectives of the consultancy

This assignment is a targeted Evidence Gap Assessment, Data Reconstruction, and

Validation Exercise designed to strengthen the existing evaluation of One-Stop Centres

(OSCs) in Liberia. It is not a new evaluation; rather, it systematically addresses the critical

evidence gaps identified during the technical review process. By reconstructing quantitative

and qualitative evidence from administrative records, program monitoring systems,

financial documentation, and targeted stakeholder consultations, the exercise will provide

the analytical depth needed to validate, refine, or challenge the draft report’s initial

conclusions. Ultimately, this work ensures that the final evaluation yields credible,

defensible findings and actionable recommendations aligned with UNFPA Evaluation

Quality Assessment standards.

Key Objectives

To achieve this purpose, the assignment will focus on four key objectives:

• Pinpoint and document specific evidence limitations affecting the assessments of
• OSC performance, effectiveness, efficiency, value-for-money, and sustainability.
• Collect available administrative and operational data to generate robust quantitative
• evidence that complements and triangulates qualitative findings.
• Assess whether existing conclusions in the draft report—particularly regarding
• service utilization, referral effectiveness, and long-term viability—are empirically
• supported, offering revised interpretations or deeper contextual analysis where
• required.
• Clearly outline any unresolvable limitations and provide practical recommendations
• to improve programme data collection, monitoring, and evaluation frameworks for
• the One Stop Center model moving forward.

Scope of work (Description of services, activities, or outputs)

This assignment focuses exclusively on addressing the core evidence gaps identified during

the technical review of the draft evaluation report. Working within these priority areas, the

consultant will execute the following:

• Reconstruct service utilization trends by analyzing administrative records, routine

GBVIMS reports, facility registries, and routine monitoring data. Assess referral

pathways and the continuity of care by tracing survivor progression from intake

through service completion, identifying structural bottlenecks, completion rates, and

sectoral coordination challenges.

• Evaluate operational performance through staffing arrangements, caseload

distributions, service delivery timelines, and workload patterns to determine how

efficiently existing operational processes and resources are utilized.

• Develop and analyze proxy indicators derived from implementation data to

compensate for the lack of a formal results framework, baselines, or targets.

Measure how effectively OSCs improve service access, sector coordination, and

survivor-centered care.

• Compare the standard OSC model with integrated health service delivery

approaches to analyze differences in operational mechanisms, service availability,

and contextual performance drivers.

• Conduct targeted cost and financial analysis using available budget, expenditure,

and operational data to assess resource allocation, cost efficiency, and overall value

for money.

• Critically reassess earlier conclusions in the draft report regarding institutional

sustainability. Evaluate government ownership, financial dependence on donors,

staffing constraints, and long-term operational viability to determine real-world

risks to systemic institutionalization.

Methodological Approach

The exercise must employ a targeted mixed-methods approach to collect and/ or reconstruct

missing data and validate findings. Data collection and analysis strategies include:

• Desk Reviews & Secondary Quantitative Data: Conduct a comprehensive

analysis of administrative logs, financial records, GBVIMS databases, and program

documentation.

• Primary Data & Stakeholder Consultations: Conduct primary data collection,

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with

service providers, sector leaders, and key stakeholders.

• Field Visits & Triangulation: Conduct direct field observations across targeted

facilities to validate administrative data against operational realities.

Duration and working schedule

The OSC Evaluation Evidence Reconstruction and Validation Exercise is scheduled for

implementation from September through October 2026.

Place where services are to be delivered:

The evaluation covers Montserrado, Grand Gedeh, and Rivercess counties.

Deliverables and how work will be delivered (e.g., electronic, hardcopy, etc.):

The deliverables or milestones of the consultancy will include:

• An Inception Report
• Data Collection Tools that specifically target existing data gaps
• Draft Evaluation Report
• Stakeholders' Validation Workshop Report
• Final Report

Evaluation Methodology

This assignment strictly maintains the scope of the original Terms of Reference regarding

the evaluation period, geographical coverage, primary intended users, and core evaluation

questions. Rather than duplicating earlier efforts, the exercise focuses directly on closing

identified evidence gaps, expanding the analytical depth, and ensuring all conclusions align

with UNFPA evaluation standards across the standard OECD-DAC criteria (Relevance,

Coherence, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Sustainability).

Relevance

• To what extent are One-Stop Centres (OSCs) aligned with national GBV response

frameworks and appropriate for the evolving needs of SGBV survivors?

• How responsive are OSC services to the diverse needs and priorities of survivors

across targeted counties.

• Are the operational strategies and integrated service models appropriate and

survivor-centered.

Coherence & Coordination

• How effectively are OSCs integrated within national GBV response systems,

government structures, UN agencies, NGOs, CSOs, and community networks.

• How functional, timely, and clearly defined are referral pathways across health,

psychosocial, legal, and protection services.

Effectiveness

• What proportion of survivors presenting at OSCs access the full package of

essential services (medical, psychosocial, legal/police, and safe shelter referrals)

during their intake or follow-up.

• What percentage of survivors receive urgent medical intervention—specifically

post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) within 72 hours and emergency contraception

within 120 hours—upon presenting at an OSC.

• What is the completion rate for external referrals (e.g., from OSC medical intake to

court proceedings or long-term psychosocial care), and where are the primary

drop-off points along the referral pathway.

• To what extent do survivors report feeling safe, respected, and supported throughout

their engagement with OSC service providers.

• How effectively do OSCs facilitate coordination between health facilities, law

enforcement (e.g., Women and Children Protection Section), the judiciary, and

social welfare structures.

• What proportion of reported GBV cases managed through OSCs result in formal

legal investigation, prosecution, or court judgments.

To what extent does the OSC model contribute to accurate, standardized, and timely

data collection through the Gender-Based Violence Information Management

System (GBVIMS).

Efficiency

• How do staffing levels, operational hours, and caseload distributions across

different OSC sites correlate with service delivery output and provider workload?

• What is the average operational cost per survivor served across different OSC

locations, and how does this compare across high-volume urban (e.g., Montserrado)

versus low-density rural (e.g., Rivercess, Grand Gedeh) settings.

• How efficiently are essential supplies (e.g., PEP kits, dignity kits, forensic

examination tools, medical consumables) procured, distributed, and managed to

avoid stockouts.

• What proportion of the overall OSC budget is allocated directly to survivor care

versus administrative overhead, facility maintenance, and transport.

• What is the average duration required for a survivor to complete intake, medical

examination, police reporting, and counseling within an OSC compared to

navigating non-integrated facilities.

• Does co-locating multi-sectoral service providers within a single facility reduce

out-of-pocket costs and travel time for survivors compared to traditional referral

pathways.

• What operational or institutional bottlenecks (e.g., lack of dedicated vehicles for

police transport, delayed lab results, unpaid incentive staff) most severely impair

the speed and efficiency of OSC service provision.

Sustainability

• What is the likelihood that OSC services, operations, and benefits will continue

beyond external donor funding.

• To what extent have national ownership, institutional capacity, and dedicated

financing mechanisms been established to secure long-term operational continuity?

• How have multi-stakeholder synergies and institutional collaborations contributed

to sustained results.

Cross-Cutting Considerations (Human Rights, Gender, & Data Quality)

• How effectively do OSC services integrate human rights-based, gender-sensitive,

and culturally appropriate approaches across diverse county contexts.

• To what extent do existing data management processes ensure the accuracy,

reliability, and quality of OSC incident data.

Supervisory arrangements

The national consultant will report to and work under the direct supervision of the

UNFPA Program Specialist for Data and Evidence and the Programme Specialist, GBV

and Harmful Practices

Expected travel:

The evaluation will cover seven targeted counties: Montserrado, Bong, Nimba, Grand Cape

Mount, Lofa, Grand Gedeh, and Margibi.

Required expertise, qualifications, and competencies, including language requirements

The consultant must have the following qualifications and experience:

• Master’s degree in Gender Studies, Public Health, Social Sciences, or a relevant

discipline.

• At least 5 years of experience conducting quantitative and qualitative research,

assessments, and program evaluations.

• Strong track record in evaluation design, data analysis, and report writing.
• Proven ability to facilitate consultations with government agencies, civil society,

community structures, and youth/adolescent demographics.

• Full professional fluency in English.

Inputs/services to be provided by UNFPA or implementing partner (e.g support services, office space,

equipment), if applicable

The UNFPA Country Office (CO) will provide the current draft report, plus relevant administrative support services to ensure timely delivery