Activation Date: 18 Mar, 2021 Announced Date: 22 Mar, 2021 Expire Date: 01 Apr, 2021
About Community World Service Asia:
Community World Service Asia is non-governmental organization which implements humanitarian and development initiatives throughout Afghanistan.
Objectives of the Evaluation
This evaluation will assess the Girls Education Project (GEP) Phase V – Afghanistan against the set project objectives and outcomes to gauge its relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. The following key evaluation questions and sub-questions will be used:
Is the project design relevant to the needs of the communities and especially the most vulnerable?
Are the overall goal and objectives of the project still valid?
Does the project complement the Government’s overall policy on education?
Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with achieving its intended outcomes and impact? And which specific aspects of the approach, if any, should be replicated or adapted for future programming?
Was the design and implementation of the program adequate to support effective gender equality and bringing positive change in social norms
Is the project relevant and sensitive to local needs?
Is the project sensitive to government priorities?
To what extent has the project adapted in response to challenges and lessons learnt?
To what extent were the project objectives achieved?
How far has the project achieved its intended outputs and outcomes?
What is working well? Why?
Where is there room for improvement? What would that look like?
Are project participants and stakeholders on board in various phases of project management as per their role in design? Are community feedback and complaints mechanisms functioning well?
What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
To what extent has the project improved the access to education services of the most vulnerable?
What were the project’s achievements in terms of promoting gender equality and inclusion?
To what extent is the partner meeting its child safeguarding responsibilities and contributing to good practice in child protection?
What real difference has the project made to the targeted schools and the local communities?
What evidence do we have to demonstrate that the project contributed partially or fully in achievement of the overall goal of the project? i.e. “Young girls living in conflict-prone and fragile areas are empowered to access quality education”?
Has the project caused any unexpected positive outcomes that may have contributed in improving access to education?
Has the project caused any unintended negative consequences that may have problems for communities accessing education?
How and with what success has the project focused on social inclusion including involving persons with disabilities to ensure no groups are excluded from accessing education?
Were there any groups that were excluded from the project and if so why? Are there any strategies in place to address issue that may have impeded access to education?
How likely are the benefits of the project to continue after donor funding ceases?
Which achievements are more sustainable than others?
How can the project increase the likelihood that its benefits will continue after donor funding ceases?
How has the project addressed the challenges identified?
How the communities will be impacted if there is no continuation of the current program?
What is the likelihood of sustainability of partnerships developed among stakeholders under the project?
Lesson learnt and Recommendations.
What are some of the lesson learn and challenges from the project?
How some of these challenges can be addressed?
What other project ideas can be piloted in the project area?
Structure and form for each deliverable
Must include date, but not the author’s name(s). Authors’ details (bio notes) should be included in the annexes.
Table of contents
Page numbers must be automatically generated/formatted and included here using Microsoft Word’s document referencing tools.
List of tables
All tables must be captioned and listed here using Microsoft Word’s document referencing tools.
List of figures
All figures must be captioned and listed here using Microsoft Word’s document referencing tools.
Acronyms must be kept to a minimum and, as far as possible, be universally accepted, e.g. ICRC, UN. If an acronym is unavoidable ensure that it is spelt out in full the first time with the abbreviation in brackets, e.g. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); from this point on only the abbreviation is needed.
The executive summary must be no longer than 3 pages. It must be effective as a standalone document in succinctly outlining the evaluation process, conclusions, and recommendations. It should not include acronyms or footnotes.
Including brief project overview, motivation for commissioning evaluation, and purpose of study, scope, and approach.
Methodology, Context & constraints
Including methods, composition of team, context in which activities took place, and evaluation process constraints.
The report’s conclusions should flow logically from, and reflect, the report ‘s central findings. The report should provide a clear, defensible, and evidence-based basis for value judgments in each case.
Recommendations should be clear, relevant, and actionable. Recommendations should follow clearly from the main conclusions and reflect consultation with key stakeholders. Recommendations should not be directly related from respondents consulted during the evaluation, but rather, should be the result of analysis of the bigger picture in light of all the data collected. The recommendations should be presented in categories:
to the government education department
The evaluation report should use and refer to relevant secondary sources to support its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Terms of reference for evaluation
Evaluation team profiles
List of Interviewees
This should be listed in a way that does not identify the individual making the comment.
Collated stakeholder feedback
on findings, conclusions and recommendations
Pictures of field activity, survey, interviews with captions (Name of village/school, activity title, date)
Evaluation report style guide summary
Do not personify CWSA work of the agencies in formal reports. Use CWSA and Partner name(s) (i.e. not ‘we’, ‘us’, or ‘our’.)
Names of staff members are not to be included in the report instead, use the job title of staff members only e.g. Program Officer Afghanistan.
Must comply with the Chicago Manual of Style guidelines for in-text citations of sourced material (Author’s surname; date; page number(s)) and full bibliography referencing.
The inception and evaluation reports must use Microsoft Office’s built-in formatting structures for Normal text, List Paragraph text, and Heading text (1-3).
Normal: 11-point Calibri. 1.15 spaced.
Headings 1-3: Calibri; Bold; Descending in size from 16-point, to 14-point, to 12-point.
Headings should be numerically listed and nested as shown below:
Heading 1 looks like this
Heading 2 is nested inside H1
Heading 3 is nested inside H2
Only circular black bullet points are to be used (like this list). Do not mix bullet point styles in the document. Text following a bullet point starts with a capital.
Spell out numbers one to nine; use numerals for numbers 10 and higher. Use comma separators for numbers over 999 (e.g. 1,000).
Use single quotation marks, unless directly quoting spoken comments.
Single spaces only after full stops and/or between words.
Please place full stops at the end of your sentences. When there is a bullet point, if it is a compete sentence it needs a full stop; lists (of nouns) do not need a full stop.
Use the British English (United Kingdom) dictionary in Microsoft Office (i.e. honour not honor, capitalise not capitalize)
Graphs must use a minimum of colours and, as far as possible, be sorted in ascending or descending order to intuitively communicate results visually. Please consult the Social Cops guide on Dos and Don’ts of Data Visualisation.
Please make full use of Microsoft Word’s built-in tools for document structuring, formatting, and referencing.
Scope of the Evaluation
This evaluation will cover the last 3 years (July 2017 – July 2020) of Girls Education Project (GEP) implementation in Nangarhar, Laghman and Bamyan provinces of Afghanistan. By doing so, the evaluation will cover all outcomes and associated outcomes against aforementioned DAC Criteria. The evaluation will look at the complete range of engaged stakeholders including head teachers, teachers, students, school management committes, parents and line department. Organizational assessment is out of scope of this evaluation.
Methodology of the Evaluation
The consultant(s) will present elaborative methodology for the evaluation by further elaborating the following key requirements:
Desk review: Desk review should include all relevant program documents i.e. baseline, project proposals, program reports, plans and budget, Midterm Review, case studies, financial documents, and other related documents.
Evaluation Framework: The consultant(s) is expected to present a conceptual framework in their technical proposal. The consultant is expected to consider preliminary desk review findings while developing conceptual framework.
Mixed Methodology: A combined/mixed approach of Qualitative and Quantitative data is expected to be used in the evaluation methodology. While selecting combined approach, the methodology should clarify the relevance/rationale for using particular methods of a particular approach in relation to the subject of evaluation. Child and youth-friendly approaches should be utilised with students.
Sample size: The methodology should clearly describe the sample size calculation by employing scientific method and the rationale behind selecting the sample size.
Disaggregated data: All data, qualitative and quantitative to be collected through the review must be disaggregated by sex, age, location, educational background, socio-economic class and disabilities.
Data analysis and interpretation: The methodology should clearly describe as to how qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated in the process of analysis in the light of combined/mixed approach.
In order to do so, the consultant(s) will require a team of experts. Therefore, the technical proposal should clearly mention the team composition including names, qualification, expertise and role of each team member in conducting this evaluation.
Important to note that in order not to cause spreading the Coronavirus, the consultant will strictly adhere to ORGANIZATION’s COVID-19 SOPs. The ORGANIZATION’s SOPs are attached with the TORS.
Timeframe and location of the Evaluation
The evaluation shall be carried out in April 2021. The consultant(s) are required to submit tentative work and travel plan for conducting the evaluation.
Duration of Evaluation exercise: Approximately 40days (field work should be done 3 week of March and first week of April 2020)
Location of the Consultancy: Nangarhar, Laghman and Bamyan
Deliverables of the evaluation:
Specific information about the types of deliverables required
Inception report (Word document). This deliverable will detail the field plans and data collection tools to be used for this evaluation. The Commissioning Manager, Evaluation Manager, and Critical Reference Group will use this report to ensure that the purpose of the evaluation has been fully understood and the field plans and tools proposed are suitable to deliver on it. Following the approval of the inception report, the consultant will begin field work.
Raw dataset (Excel document(s). ORGANIZATION is the data controller for this data collection activity and is the owner of any and all data collected. The data will be used by the MEAL Unit for central data archiving and learning purposes.
Initial findings presentation (Power-point document plus in-person presentation thereof). This deliverable will allow the Commissioning Manager, Evaluation Manager, and Critical Reference Group to learn about the findings of the evaluation at high level and provide an opportunity for them to clarify any issues and raise major comments and feedback.
Full evaluation report (Word document). This deliverable will present in detail the methodology, limitations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation for use at higher level by the Commissioning Manager and for use in project design development by the Evaluation Manager, wider project team, and donor. Recommendations should be specific and realistic. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the ToRs, cited resources or bibliography, a list of those interviewed. Tools and techniques used for evaluation and any other relevant materials. The final evaluation report will be submitted one week after receipt of the consolidated feedback from ORGANIZATION, PWS&D and AfP. If need to be the consultancy may be asked to present findings to both ORGANIZATION office and donor of the project.
Note: Please refer to Annex 1 for structure and form for each deliverable
In all matters in relation to the evaluation, the consultant(s) will report to the Head of MEAL Department based in Islamabad Office. The consultant will work closely with the Project team both in main and field offices.
Intellectual property rights
All products arising from this evaluation will be the property of ORGANIZATION. The evaluators will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his or her own work or to make use of the evaluation results for private publication purposes.
Quality and Ethical considerations of the Evaluation
The evaluators should take all reasonable measures to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. The evaluation team will also commit adhering to ORGANIZATION code of conduct.
The evaluation team and team leader will be required to adhere to, and be guided by, professional and ethical standards while contracted to ORGANIZATION. Evaluation managers are to ensure that evaluation team members and subcontractors have a copy of these standards. These standards include:
ORGANIZATION Code of Conduct (to be signed)
ORGANIZATION Safeguarding Policy and Code of Conduct (to be signed)
ORGANIZATION Responsible Program Data Policy (to be signed)
Australian Evaluation Society Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations.
The evaluation team members will be required to be aware of and compliant with the ORGANIZATION Code of conducts including Principles of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, ACT Alliance code of conduct for the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse, fraud and corruption and abuse of power, Code of Good Practice for the ACT Alliance, Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), ORGANIZATION Safeguarding Policy, and ORGANIZATION Responsible Program Data Policy. When in field the evaluation team members will be required to adhere to security instructions and comply with any travel safety regulations.
Only those candidates will be considered who will apply on the link mentioned below.
Note If the link isn’t working just copy and paste the link in your browser and send the filled document to