Terms of Reference (ToR) End-Term Evaluation

Job description

Terms of Reference (ToR)-End-Term Evaluation

Project Title: Empowering CSOs and Communities as Leading Actors and Participants in Social Change and Building Capacities of Local Authorities to Deliver Transparent, Accountable, People-Centred Social Services

1. Background and Context

The action Empowering CSOs and communities as leading actors and participants in social change and building capacities of local authorities to deliver transparent, accountable, people-centred social services was funded by the European Union and implemented by YOVENCO in partnership with SOYDAVO in Somaliland.

The action aimed to strengthen Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and communities as independent and credible actors in governance processes, while enhancing the capacity of local authorities to plan, manage, and deliver transparent, inclusive, accountable, and people-centred social services. Implementation took place across multiple regions of Somaliland and targeted CSOs, local authorities, women, youth, internally displaced persons (IDPs), persons with disabilities (PwDs), minority clan groups, media actors, and the wider population.

The project’s intervention logic, expected results, indicators, and targets were articulated in the approved project proposal, logical framework, and Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plan. The project has now reached completion.

In line with EU accountability requirements and the project’s MEL framework, YOVENCO is commissioning an independent End-Term Evaluation (ETE) to assess overall performance, results achieved, and prospects for sustainability.

2. Purpose and Objectives of the End-Term Evaluation

2.1 Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of the End-Term Evaluation is to provide an independent, objective, and evidence-based assessment of the project’s performance at completion. The evaluation serves both accountability and learning functions for the donor, implementing partners, and key stakeholders. It will assess what the project has achieved, how and why results were or were not realized, and what lessons can inform future programming and policy dialogue.

2.2 Specific Objectives of the Evaluation

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to:

• Assess the extent to which the project achieved its overall objective, outcomes, and expected results as defined in the logical framework
• Examine the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the intervention using OECD-DAC evaluation criteria
• Identify key enabling factors, constraints, and risks that influenced implementation and results
• Analyse the effectiveness of capacity-building, participation, advocacy, and social accountability approaches
• Assess the integration of cross-cutting issues, including gender equality, social inclusion, conflict sensitivity, and environmental considerations
• Document lessons learned and good practices to inform similar interventions
• Provide clear, practical, and actionable recommendations for future programming

3. Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation will cover the entire duration of the project and all geographic and thematic components. It will examine interventions related to CSO capacity building on governance, accountability, advocacy, and gender equality; engagement of CSOs and communities in participatory planning, policy dialogue, and social accountability processes; and initiatives aimed at strengthening the capacity of local authorities to deliver transparent and people-centred social services.

The scope also includes civic education, community engagement, and media involvement in local governance processes. Particular attention will be paid to the inclusion of women, youth, IDPs, PwDs, and minority groups, as well as to cross-cutting themes such as gender equality, social inclusion, conflict sensitivity, and environmental considerations.

The evaluation will assess results at output, outcome, and overall objective levels, as defined in the project’s logical framework.

4. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions

The evaluation will be guided by the OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria (2019), which will structure both the analysis and reporting.

Ø  Relevance will examine the extent to which the project objectives and design were aligned with the needs and priorities of CSOs, local authorities, and communities, and the appropriateness of the intervention logic in addressing governance, inclusion, and accountability challenges.

Ø  Effectiveness will assess the extent to which planned outputs and outcomes were achieved, and identify factors that facilitated or constrained results, including the effectiveness of capacity-building and participation approaches.

Ø  Efficiency will analyse how well financial, human, and time resources were converted into results, including the adequacy of management and coordination arrangements. Financial analysis will focus on efficiency and value for money rather than audit or compliance.

Ø  Impact will explore significant positive or negative, intended or unintended changes at CSO, local authority, and community levels, including early signs of behavioural, institutional, or systemic change.

Ø  Sustainability will assess the likelihood that project benefits will continue after external support ends, taking into account institutional capacity, ownership, partnerships, and resource considerations.

5. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluator(s) are expected to propose a rigorous, participatory, and mixed-methods approach appropriate to the evaluation objectives and context. The methodology should enable triangulation of evidence from multiple sources and provide credible answers to the evaluation questions.

The evaluation is expected to combine the following methods:

• Desk review of key project documentation
• Key informant interviews with project staff, CSOs, local authorities, donors, and other stakeholders
• Focus group discussions with beneficiaries, including women, youth, and marginalised groups
• Field visits to selected project locations
• Review and analysis of quantitative monitoring data

The methodology must ensure independence and impartiality, ethical data collection practices, and sensitivity to gender, inclusion, and conflict dynamics. A detailed evaluation matrix linking evaluation questions, indicators, data sources, and methods shall be included in the inception report.

6. Evaluation Design, Analysis and Quality Assurance

The evaluation shall be theory-based and guided by the project’s theory of change. The evaluator(s) will assess assumptions, risks, and causal pathways linking inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and higher-level change.

Analysis will include:

• Comparison of planned versus achieved results
• Contribution analysis to assess the project’s role in observed changes
• Gender and social inclusion analysis examining differential effects
• Identification of unintended positive or negative effects

Quality assurance measures shall include piloting of data collection tools, triangulation of findings, validation with stakeholders, and transparent discussion of limitations.

7. Deliverables and Reporting

The evaluator(s) will be responsible for the following deliverables:

• Inception Report, detailing refined evaluation questions, methodology, evaluation matrix, data collection tools, and work plan
• Draft End-Term Evaluation Report, presenting findings structured by evaluation criteria, supported by evidence, with preliminary conclusions and recommendations
• Final End-Term Evaluation Report, incorporating feedback and including an executive summary (maximum five pages), conclusions, lessons learned, and actionable recommendations

The final report should not exceed 40–50 pages excluding annexes and should follow EU and UN evaluation reporting standards.

8. Validation and Dissemination

A validation process will be undertaken to ensure accuracy, credibility, and stakeholder ownership of the evaluation findings. This may include presentation of preliminary findings and a validation meeting or workshop. Feedback will be incorporated where appropriate, without compromising the independence of the evaluator(s).

9. Management Arrangements and Roles

The evaluation will be commissioned and managed by YOVENCO as the lead implementing partner. YOVENCO will provide access to documentation, facilitate coordination with stakeholders, and support logistical arrangements. SOYDAVO will support stakeholder engagement and field access where relevant.

The evaluator(s) will operate independently and will be fully responsible for the design, implementation, and quality of the evaluation, as well as for its findings and recommendations.

Skills and qualifications

. Eligibility: Consultants and Evaluation Firms

This assignment is open to individual consultants and evaluation firms or consortia. Applicants must clearly indicate their status and demonstrate how the required expertise will be met.

10.1 Individual Consultants

Individual consultants must demonstrate:

• At least 7–10 years of progressively responsible experience in evaluation of governance, civil society, or development programmes
• Proven experience leading end-term or final evaluations for donor-funded projects (EU or similar preferred)
• Strong competence in mixed-methods research design and analysis
• Demonstrated experience integrating gender equality and social inclusion in evaluations
• Excellent analytical writing and presentation skills in English

Where gaps exist (e.g., local language skills or advanced quantitative analysis), individual consultants may propose short-term associates or enumerators to complement their expertise.

10.2 Evaluation Firms or Consortia

Evaluation firms or consortia must demonstrate:

• At least 5 years of organisational experience conducting external evaluations
• A strong portfolio of comparable assignments, including governance, CSO strengthening, accountability, or service delivery programmes
• Availability of an interdisciplinary team covering evaluation design, qualitative and quantitative analysis, and gender and social inclusion expertise
• Proven internal quality assurance systems and ethical safeguarding procedures

The proposed team should include, at a minimum:

• Team Leader / Lead Evaluator
• Gender and Social Inclusion specialist (may be combined with another role)
• Quantitative or MEL specialist, where applicable