National Consultancy for completion of GBV One Stop Center evaluation

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.

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.

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.

The OSC Evaluation Evidence Reconstruction and Validation Exercise is scheduled for
implementation from September through October 2026.

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

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.

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

The evaluation will cover seven targeted counties: Montserrado, Bong, Nimba, Grand Cape
Mount, Lofa, Grand Gedeh, and Margibi.

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.