Job Description

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)
CONSULTANCY TO CONDUCT AN ENDLINE EVALUATION SURVEY
FOR THE MULTI-YEAR RESILIENCE PROGRAMME II (MYRP II) FUND UNDER THE EDUCATION CANNOT WAIT (ECW) PROJECT
“Unlocking the Potential of Young People through Skills Building in Kyangwali Refugee Settlement”

BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT UNDER EVALUATION
CIYOTA, in partnership with Street Child Uganda and Save the Children under the Uganda Education Consortium Management Unit (CMU), has been implementing a three-year project funded by Education Cannot Wait (2023–2025). This skills development project has been implemented in collaboration with AVSI Foundation, CSU, and HAF Uganda.

CIYOTA received the ECW Multi-Year Resilience Programme II (MYRP II) Fund to implement the Entrepreneurial and Leadership Curriculum in three project secondary schools in Kyangwali Refugee Settlement as part of efforts to implement the Education Response Plan II for refugees and host communities in Uganda.

The three project secondary schools include:
Kyangwali Secondary School, Planning for Tomorrow Secondary School and CIYOTA Secondary School

As part of the project design, CIYOTA seeks to engage a highly skilled consultant(s) to conduct an endline evaluation survey of the project in Kyangwali Refugee Settlement. The survey will assess project performance against the set indicators and provide insights to inform future programming, applying the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

THE INTERVENTION
CIYOTA contributes and reports on interventions under the following outcomes and outputs:
Outcome 1: Improved Continuous, Safe, and Equitable Access and Retention to Inclusive Learning and Training Opportunities

Output 1.5: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) situation for girls improved.

Outcome 2: Improved Delivery of Quality Education and Training

• Output 2.1 Continued recruitment and remuneration of male and female teachers
• Output 2.2 Provision of continuous professional development and supplementary
trainings for teachers and head teachers
• Output 2.3 Provision of curriculum, teaching and learning materials
• Output 2.4 Strengthening child participation and resilience
• Output 2.6 Provision of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support to teachers

Outcome 3: Strengthened Systems for Effective and Resilient Service Delivery
• Output 3.1 Community-level engagement strengthened to support sustainability and
accountability

Below are the key activities for each output;
Intervention Key Activities
Outcome 1: Improved Continuous, Safe and Equitable Access and Retention to Inclusive Learning and Training Opportunities.
Output 1.5 Distribution of Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) kits to girls

Outcome 2: Improved Delivery of Quality Education and Training
Output 2.1 Continued recruitment and remuneration of male and female teachers
Output 2.2 Provision of continuous professional development and supplementary trainings for teachers and head teachers.
Output 2.3 Provision of curriculum, teaching and learning materials
Output 2.4 Strengthening child participation and resilience
Output 2.6 Provision of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support to teachers

Outcome 3: Strengthened Systems for Effective and Resilient Service Delivery
Output 3.1 Community-level engagement strengthened to support sustainability and
accountability.
Project kick off and close out engagement meetings with Consortium partners, OPM, UNHCR, District & schools
Community dialogues to engage the SMC/BOG
District and settlement consortium partners engagement meetings and
collaborations.

Note: Additionally, for club members, the consultant should also determine the number of;
i. Young people in entrepreneurship
ii. Young people employed
iii. Young people employing others
iv. Average earning of a young person

EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of conducting the endline evaluation survey is to support the impact measurement, monitoring and evaluation activities, inform knowledge management strategies and facilitate evidence-based program design. The incumbent will be responsible for generating
insights from both quantitative and qualitative data sources to enhance organizational learning, decision-making and program effectiveness.

Specific objectives of the Evaluation
i. The objective of the assignment is to establish the status of the selected indicators for the project outcome and outputs.
Specifically, the assignment is;
ii. To assess the outcomes, effectiveness and challenges of the project in bringing about change, including intended and unintended changes;
iii. To identify key learnings for the organization, Stakeholders and project participants and anything that should have been done differently in the implementation of the project in order to further increase in its effectiveness and accountability;
iv. To make recommendations for development of future projects.

In compliance with the standard regulations, this evaluation will observe the guide for commissioning external evaluations locally. For this reason, the consultant’s evaluation is expected to address the DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
The evaluation will examine project implementation criteria by addressing the following questions. The evaluator will develop a more detailed analytic framework of questions and sub-questions to carry out the evaluation. The evaluation questions will be structured around the
OECD-DAC criteria, including Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability.

Relevance
i. To what extent have the project outcomes been relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries?
ii. Is the project approach appropriate with a view of improving either directly or indirectly the life situation of the project beneficiaries?
iii. Were project methodologies and approaches in line with the project partners’ priorities, capacities and expectations?
iv. Should the project design and methodology be modified to improve its relevance in the next phase of the project? If so, how?
v. What are the main features of the project covered by the evaluation?
vi. Is the project strategy convincing and likely to be successful with a view to achieving the planned project objectives?
vii. What framework conditions are important for the project? To what extent have they been taken into account?
viii. To what extent are the initial objectives and the design of the project still appropriate.

Coherence
i. What synergies and links exist between the project and other interventions
implemented by CIYOTA?
ii. Does the project comply with the norms and standards of CIYOTA?
iii. In what respect is the project consistent with the interventions of other actors in the
same context?
iv. Where appropriate, are activities harmonized and coordinated with those of other actors
and do they complement each other?
v. To what extent does the project create added-value and at the same time avoid the
duplication of work activities?

Effectiveness
i. To what extent has the project been making progress towards its planned objectives?
ii. What have been achieved so far?
iii. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives and outputs?
iv. To what extent has the project secured the commitment of the project partners and built-up national ownership?
v. To what extent has the project addressed the unemployment, poverty and other youth challenges in the three sub counties of operation?
vi. To what extent has the project promoted non-discrimination and gender equality?
vii. What approaches have been adopted to ensure the interests of beneficiaries including Girls and other socially and economically disadvantaged groups are fully taken into account in developing project outputs and carrying out project activities?
viii. Which activities and outputs made a particularly important contribution to the achievement of objectives and which were not so important?
ix. How many people were reached through the project and how does this compare with the planned number?

Efficiency
i. Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) been allocated strategically to achieve outcomes?
ii. What evidence is there to indicate that the project was implemented with due regard to economic efficiency under the given circumstances? Was the project implemented economically and cost-consciously?
iii. On what parameters is this assessment based (e.g., costs per project output: costs per training course or trainee, etc.)? Are any benchmarks for these parameters available from other projects or institutions?
iv. Were the results achieved within an appropriate timeframe? Were adjustments made, e.g., due to changed conditions?
v. How well does the organization perform?
vi. What is the relation between the observed effects and the resources used?

Effectiveness
i. What exactly has changed for the beneficiaries as a result of the project? The focus here should be on social, economic, political, cultural and environmental changes with consideration given to gender aspects and other relevant social differentiations.
ii. Has the project received adequate political, technical and administrative support from its stake holders?
iii. Was there a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities by all parties involved?
iv. Which external factors contributed to the changes and to what extent can the changes be attributed to the project activities (plausibility)?
v. Did the effects logic adopted in the project plans prove effective? If not, where are there deviations?

Sustainability
i. How likely will the project achieve its objectives in the remaining period and what elements need to be taken into account to ensure sustainability of outcomes?
ii. To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to continue at various levels?
iii. What were the major factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the sustainability of the project?
iv. What role do risks, potential conflicts of interest and resilience (e.g. of target groups and partners) play in this context?

EVALUATION METHODOLOGIES
The methodology for this evaluation will include both direct and indirect data collection, analysis, cross-referencing and formulating recommendations thematically and as area/site-specific. This evaluation requires a mixed method approach that allows methodological
triangulation to increase the validity and credibility of data. Participatory methods shall be used to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Whereas CIYOTA contents that it is the responsibility of the consultant(s) to develop and implement the most suitable and appropriate
study methodology, here are some suggested methods,

a) Data sources. Both primary and secondary data shall be used in the evaluation which will
include qualitative and quantitative data.
• Quantitative Data Collection: School records analysis and structured interviews with students, club members, teachers and some parents.
• Qualitative Data Collection: Focus group discussions, key informant interviews and case studies to explore aspects of the skilling project to beneficiaries and teachers.
• Desk Review: Analysis of relevant policies, previous research and program documents.
b) Field visits and observations
c) In depth Personal Interviews with project Beneficiaries.
While the Consultant(s) will propose a detailed methodology based on his/her experience that will adequately inform the stated objectives, the endline evaluation exercise should be highly participatory and consultative in nature. It should adopt a mixed-methods approach involving
quantitative and qualitative techniques of research.

A representative sample should be selected from the study population including all the relevant project stakeholders. Reliability should be ensured through use of open-ended questions structured around the subject. The interviews should ensure the participation of all targeted
respondents and where relevant, encourage equal participation of girls and boys in focus group discussions for students.

CIYOTA is open to innovations and other approaches but specifically to applications that have a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches for data collection and analysis.

To enhance likelihood of achieving the study objectives stated above, the consultant(s) shall work closely with the MEAL Manager and Officer to steer and coordinate the process and ensure effective coverage of the project area. It is expected that the consultant(s) will develop and
institute an in-field quality control.

SCOPE, TARGET AND CONTENT OF THE EVALUATION
The evaluation will cover the implementation period from May 2023 to September 2025, to create an accurate and comprehensive picture of the project implementation, generating findings from the evaluation and documenting good practices and lessons learned. The evaluation will integrate gender equality and non-discrimination as a cross-cutting concern throughout its methodology and all deliverables including the final report.
Geographical scope: The evaluation will be conducted in the project’s area coverage in Kyangwali refugee settlement. Remember, the project is being implemented in 3 project schools; Kyangwali Secondary School, Planning for Tomorrow Secondary School and CIYOTA Secondary School.

Time scope: The evaluation will cover the implementation period from May 2023 to 31st October 2025.
The consultancy is expected to last for 20 days, beginning from (27th October 2025) and concluding on (21st November 2025).
This starts from presentation of an inception report.

Stakeholders:
The key stakeholders to be involved in the Endline evaluation survey include but not limited to the following: The Refugees and host community members in the Kyangwali refugee settlement (specifically);
• 1,828 (1,412 past and 416 present) students attending Leadership and Entrepreneurship sessions across the 3 project schools. Past learners are those who were enrolled in project years I and II, they are in s2 and s3 currently. Present learners are those enrolled in the third year of the project and are in s1.
• 861 (508 past and 353 present) Club members across the 3 project schools.
• 25 teachers trained on Leadership & Entrepreneurship course across the 3 project schools
• Staff of Consortium members implementing the same project in the settlement.

Content scope: The evaluation is expected to cover all the components of the project.
Evaluation questions should be answered with evidence gathered; lessons learnt highlighted and provide information on the nature, extent and where possible bring out a clear understanding of what has and what has not worked well as a guide for future planning.

KEY DELIVERABLES AND OUTPUTS
Inception Report (Methodology & Work plan) – Week 1
Data Collection & Preliminary Analysis – Week 2
Draft and Final Survey Report – Week 3

The following deliverables will be provided in English. The successful consultant(s) is expected to submit all interim reports, data collection tools and draft and final reports in soft and hard
copy (word or excel, PDF);
• Power point presentation for the inception Meeting.

Inception report submitted.
• Data collection tools
• Conduct primary and secondary data collection through surveys, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and document reviews.
• Analyze data to establish endline evaluation survey values for project indicators.
• A draft report of the study including analysis of the data in line with the study outcomes and scope
• Final detailed report after incorporating comments from CIYOTA will be required in soft and hard copy.
• Prepare a comprehensive endline evaluation survey report incorporating key findings, conclusions and recommendations.
• All materials used and produced by the study in soft copies of the report and raw data either in STATA, SPSS, excel, or Focus Group Discussions in soft form.
• Minutes of the validation meetings with all relevant stakeholders and other supporting documents like attendance lists, photos where necessary.
• Present findings to CIYOTA and key stakeholders.

MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The consultancy exercise will be managed by CIYOTA’s MEAL Manager to ensure alignment with project goals. The Programs Coordinator will provide technical leadership in the execution of the consultancy roles. At the field level, the MEAL Officer in collaboration with Project staff
will directly support the exercise.
Final approval of the report will be done by the Executive Director.

REPORTING
The final evaluation report shall not be more than 40 pages without annexes and shall imitate
the format below;
i. Title page
ii. Table of Contents
iii. Acronyms
iv. Acknowledgments
v. Executive Summary
vi. Background and Project Description
vii. Purpose and justification of the evaluation
viii. Evaluation methodology
ix. Evaluation Findings presented under the headings of the key project outcomes, results and ensuring the evaluation questions have been addressed.
x. Lessons learnt based on quantitative and qualitative evidence; showing the context, intervention, result and the lesson for future programming or scale up.
xi. Conclusion and Recommendations.
xii. Bibliography

Annexes will include; Photos taken during evaluation and field implementation, List of participants in meetings and interviews, List of research assistants and all involved in the evaluation, Data collection tools etc.

CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL
Only responsive and compliant applications will be evaluated. Offers will be evaluated according to the combined Scoring method, where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 85% and the financial proposal will weigh as 15% of
the total scoring. The applicant receiving the Highest combined score that has also accepted the General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
CIYOTA shall solely and exclusively own all rights in and to any work created in connection with this agreement, including all data, documents, information, copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or other proprietary rights in and to the work. The consultant(s) is not allowed to post or publish (electronically or in print) any project-related information without the explicit permission in writing from CIYOTA.

SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF CONSULTANT(S)

This assignment requires consultant(s) with the following qualifications and experience:

Proven experience in participatory research methodologies.

Extensive experience in conducting social and development-related evaluations, particularly in Livelihoods and Education in emergency and refugee settings, with a strong record of delivering professional results.

The consultant(s) team may consist of one or more experts. The lead consultant must hold at least a Master’s degree in Research, Monitoring and Evaluation, or a related field such as Development Studies, Social Sciences, Economics, Livelihoods Management, or Education. Holders of a Postgraduate Diploma in the same fields are encouraged to apply.

At least seven (7) years of relevant experience in similar research assignments within the public or private sector, including strategic planning, performance monitoring, organizational consulting, and change management.

Strong expertise in project evaluation, preferably within education-focused programs.

Excellent interpersonal and teamwork skills, with the ability to collaborate effectively with the CIYOTA team.

Demonstrated experience applying the Theory of Change approach, Results-Based Management, and a strong understanding of the Kyangwali Refugee Settlement context or similar environments.

Knowledge and experience in using digital data collection systems is an added advantage.

Strong background in project evaluation design, survey implementation, and statistical data analysis.

Proven track record in designing and conducting qualitative and quantitative evaluations.

Experience working with marginalized communities, particularly girls and refugees, is an asset.

Excellent analytical, writing, and presentation skills.

Experience managing and coordinating evaluation or research exercises, ensuring timely and on-budget delivery of agreed outputs.

Proficiency in participatory appraisal techniques for data collection and analysis.

Ability to respond promptly and appropriately to feedback and questions.

Ability to write high-quality, clear, and concise reports in English.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
Interested individual consultants or firms who meet the above qualifications are invited to submit the following:

A technical proposal interpreting the Terms of Reference (TOR), outlining the proposed methodology, and including an activity schedule with time allocations.

A financial proposal in Ugandan Shillings (UGX), detailing consultancy-related costs.

CVs of the consultant(s) and proposed team members, clearly stating their roles and responsibilities. For team submissions, ensure that all proposed experts are available for the assignment.

Examples of previous relevant work, such as two (2) completed evaluations by the lead consultant. These will be used for assessment and internal review only.

At least two (2) recommendation letters from recent clients for similar assignments (if available).

Any other relevant information supporting the application.

BUDGET AND PAYMENTS
Applicants are required to submit a proposal with a detailed budget (in UGX), which will form part of the review and approval process.
Upon selection and approval of the consultant(s), payment will be made according to the following schedule:

Milestone & Percentage
1. Upon signing the contract and submission of the final inception report – 30%
2. Upon submission and approval of the final report – 70%

APPLICATION LINK: https://tinyurl.com/yn44vm3s

Employment Status

Project Base

Educational Requirements

Master’s degree

Experience Requirements

5 - <10 Years

Job Location

Kyangwali Refugee Settlement