Project Evaluation Consultancy

About CBM Christoffel-Blindenmission Christian Blind Mission e.V.

CBM is an international Christian development organization, committed to improving the quality of life of persons with disabilities in the poorest communities of the world. CBM International is looking for a consultant to carry out final project evaluation for a project that has ended.
As part of its ongoing commitment to ensuring the effectiveness of its projects, CBM International is seeking a consultant to carry out the final evaluation of a recently concluded project. The evaluation will focus on assessing the project’s overall impact, including its achievements, challenges, lessons learned, and any lasting changes it may have brought about in the communities served.

Terms of Reference for Evaluation
Evaluation Summary
Project ID and Program/Project Name: P5806 Improved access to inclusive early childhood care and schooling for children with disabilities in
refugee and host communities in Kalobeyei and Camp Kakuma, Turkana.
Project ID and Program/Project Name: P5806 Improved access to inclusive early childhood care and schooling for children with disabilities in refugee and host communities in Kalobeyei and Camp Kakuma, Turkana.
Name of Partner Organisation/s: Waldorf Kakuma Project
Project start: 01.12.2021 End dates: 31.12.2024
Evaluation Purpose: The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the extent to which project overall goal has been achieved for accountability to the donor, reporting, and learning to measure the project impact.
Evaluation Type: This is final project evaluation
Contracting organisation/contact person: CBM Christoffel-Blindenmission Christian Blind Mission e.V
Primary Methodology: Mixed Methods as appropriate
Proposed Evaluation Start Dates: 19th March 2025
Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date: 18th April 2025
Recipient of Final Evaluation Report: CBM Christoffel-Blindenmission Christian Blind Mission e.V

1. Project Description (max 1 page)
About the project
The improved access to inclusive early childhood care and schooling for children with disabilities in refugee and host communities in Kalobeyei and Camp Kakuma, project is a 3-year project (December 2021-December 2024) being implemented by Waldorf Kakuma Project in Turkana County in partnership with the CBM Christian Blind Mission. The Project was fully funded by the Germany Federal Government with 25% budget contribution by CBM.
Project Goal and specific objective:
The overall objective of the project was to improve quality and sustainability of inclusive education in the refugee camps of Kakuma and Kalobeyei and host communities in Turkana West. Specifically, the project was to ensure both learners with or without disabilities have improved access to education and are integrated into their communities and that government and non-governmental education actors take concrete steps to embed inclusive education more strategically in their work. The sub-objectives included access to quality inclusive education for children with and without disabilities; increasing awareness of the inclusion of persons with disabilities and rights of children with disabilities including increased access to services for children with disabilities; and strengthening coordination and cooperation between actors in education of the target communities.
Target group:
The target population consisted of 2500 persons from Kakuma and Kalobeyei Refugee Camps and the host communities. The target group consisted primarily of children with disabilities (650 in Host Community and 210 from Kalobeyie-Kakuma Refugee Camp) whose access to education and secondary services require improvement. Besides about 1230 (Host community 700; Refugee camp 530) parents of children with disabilities were also targeted with the project. The project also intended to address gaps with parents and caregivers of children with disabilities and teachers.
The stakeholders included Government agencies and other partners in education sector, staff from Internal Rescue Committee, Kenya Redcross, Association for Physically Disabled of Kenya, African Inland Church Health Ministries.
Feasibility Study Findings
At the beginning of the project a feasibility study was conducted and the gaps identified included lack of disaggregated data on children with disability (school enrolment and transition rates) in the refugee camps and host community; inadequate training of teachers on inclusive education; negative cultural barriers towards children with disability which negatively affects enrolment in school; inadequate learning infrastructure and learning materials for leaners with disabilities; poorly equipped or unavailability of Education Assessment and Resource Centres that support children with disability; and weak coordination mechanisms for inclusive education in the target region. The feasibility study recommendations included strengthening coordination of data collection on the situation of children with disability and support needs to access inclusive education; training teachers on inclusive education and continuous mentorship; advocacy work with the Ministry of Education to increase recruitment of teaching staff; awareness creation in host community to remove attitudinal and cultural barriers preventing children from accessing education; improve accessibility barriers in classrooms through renovations; provision of learning materials for inclusive education; and advocating for government to build more classrooms, establishment of EARCs in host community and establishment of dialogue forum with the government. This project therefore planned to train teachers, address physical barriers by improving accessibility in classrooms, advocate for government to support inclusive education, provide materials and increase enrolment and retention of learners in schools.
2. Evaluation Objective and Intended Use
The evaluation is to establish the programme results for communication and learning, sharing best practices and to remain accountable to the donor. The findings for this evaluation will be useful for future designs of similar projects.

3. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will cover perspectives from parents, caregivers, teachers, Ministry of Education in Turkana County, County Director of ECD, the partners, the school management, Sub-County Education Officers, Sub-County Directors of ECD, Education Assessment and Resource Centre Officers, community leaders and CBM.

The evaluation will cover areas relevant to inclusive education as per the project intervention areas including but not limited to, infrastructure improvement, inclusive education, trainings, provision of materials, linkage with other services, equipment, community related activities and advocacy related activities.

Limitations
The time available is restricted as per the TOR
4. Target audience and learning

The final report will be submitted in easy-to-understand language and in accessible format. The report is expected to be shared with the implementing partner Waldorf Kakuma Project, Government Representatives, Key development partners, CBM and BMZ (donor) as well as with members of the target group such as learners with disabilities. The results of this evaluation will be used to determine the impact of the project to the intended target and lessons learned for scale up of such a programme and further design of future programmes of such nature.
5. Evaluation Questions
The evaluation questions shall be based on the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.
The evaluation will also assess aspects around the CBM Programme Quality Principles (PQF document to be provided to consultants after signing the contract). The principles include.
– Equality and Inclusion
– Gender Equity
– Safeguarding (children and vulnerable adults)
– Advocacy
– Accessibility and Universal Design.
The Consultant will be expected to develop guiding questions that refer directly to planned achievements (outcomes/objectives) as in the project plan, log -frame or theory of change. The consultant ought to clearly understand the project’s/programme’s objectives, expected results, activities and target groups to respond to the below.
I. RELEVANCE – Is the project/programme doing/ has it been doing the right things?
• Was the project designed in a way that responds to the needs and priorities of all participants (irrespective of gender, age, disability status)?
• To what extent does/did the project design reflect the rights of children with disabilities and other marginalised groups and include feedback from a diverse range of local stakeholders?

II. COHERENCE – How well does/did the project/programme fit in the broader national and international context?
• To what extent are the project’s design, delivery and results coherent with international laws and commitments to disability rights, gender equality and rights, including the CRPD , CEDAW , and the 2030 Agenda?
• To what extent does the intervention support national legislation and initiatives that aim to improve equality and human rights?
• Was the theory of change and results framework informed by analysis of inclusion, gender equality, political economy analysis and human rights?

III. EFFECTIVENESS – Is the project/programme achieving its objectives?
• Did the project achieve its objectives and expected results in ways that contribute to inclusion and equality across groups, such as persons with and without disabilities or women/girls and men/boys? Were different approaches used to reach the different groups? If so, did those different approaches contribute to the effectiveness of the project?
• Was the intervention adjusted to address any concerns and maximise effectiveness?
IV. EFFICIENCY – How well have resources been planned and used?
• To what extent did the intervention deliver results in a cost effective and timely way.
• Were different resources allocated in ways that considered inclusion and equality?
• Was differential resource allocation appropriate and adequate?
V. IMPACT – What difference did the project make?
• To what extent did the intervention generate or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
• Were there equal impacts for different groups of people? If so, why did these differential impacts occur?
• How did norms relate to disability or gender and barriers within the wider political, economic, religious, legislative and socio-cultural environment impact outcomes?
• To what extent have impacts contributed to equal power relations between different groups of people and to changing of social norms and systems?
VI. SUSTAINABILITY – Will the benefits last?
• To what extent will the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue. Includes an examination of the financial, economic, social, environmental and institutional capacities of the systems needed to sustain net benefits over time.
• To what extend did the interventions contribute to greater inclusion and equality within wider legal, political, economic and social systems?
• Did it result in enduring changes to social norms that are harmful to any specific group of people? Will the achievements in inclusion and equality persist after the conclusion of the intervention? Have processes contributed to sustaining these benefits? Have mechanisms been set up to support the achievement of inclusion and equality in the longer term?
VII. Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults
• To what extent were safeguarding aspects considered and how were the respective mechanisms established, used and adhered to during project implementation?
• Were there any challenges encountered of safeguarding nature and what mitigation mechanism were put in place?
VIII. Equality and inclusion/gender equity
• How did the project ensure that women and men, persons with and without disabilities were actively involved during all steps in the project cycle and how did the groups benefit from the intervention. Was there evidence that Output and outcome data was disaggregated according to gender, age (adults/children) and disability status.
• How was disability data collected? Did the partner use Washington Group Short Set of Questions? if no what were the challenges? If so, how was the data used? If not, what were the other alternatives to data collection to ensure data disaggregation by disabilities.
• How did this project reach major population groups facing life-threatening suffering?
6. Methodology
The consultant is expected to design how the evaluation will be conducted within the given circumstances (geographical, political, time frame), context of Turkana County and not later than 30 days period from the time the contract is signed. However, during the entire process the below mandatory mechanisms must be adhered to:
• Participatory and inclusiveness
• Safeguarding of children and adults at risk
• Data disaggregation (gender/age/disability)
• Data security and privacy (informed consent)
A detailed methodology shall be provided as part of the inception report and discussed before adoption. In consultation with the implementing partner, the persons and groups to be interviewed or consulted during the evaluation shall be provided through stakeholder table in Appendix 1.
The Consultant will be expected to indicate how the evaluation shall involve female and male adults and children with disabilities and their families that are affected by the project, and necessary accommodations in the methodology (sign language, accessible venues, additional time).
In addition, the consultant is expected to specify how project participants shall be included in the data collection and analysis, in the formulation of recommendations. It is expected that the findings and recommendations be fed back to them thus the consultant will have to detail specific meetings, discussions, workshops, presentations.
7. Management Responsibilities and Evaluation Team
Commissioning responsibility
The Country Director will be responsible for contracting while CBM Technical Advisor will review and approve the methodology and final evaluation report.
Management Responsibility and Logistics
CBM will pay for all costs related to this evaluation including consultancy fee and logistics costs. The implementing partner Waldorf Kakuma Project will assist the consultant with booking for interviews and organizing for disability inclusive venues. As may be required WKP will coordinate with CBM to identify sign language interpreters as appropriate. The Administration and Human Resource Officer will be the contact persons for administrative support related to the consultancy while the Programme Coordinator will be the contact person for any technical support. The consultant will be required to take care of related logistics as this will form part of the consultancy fee but ensure proper documentation for every expenses.

Evaluation Team
The consultancy team composition must be explained by clarifying skills, academic and professional background. The consultant team need to provide detailed description on knowledge of Disability Inclusion and other technical knowledge depending on the project and evaluation focus.
The consultant should also demonstrate how organisation of persons with disabilities will participate in the evaluation as an evaluation team member or as a specific evaluation advisory group.
8. Deliverables
The key deliverables for this consultancy will include below reports and tools.
• Data collection tools 1 week after signing the contract
• Inception Report due 1 week after signing the contract
• Professionally formatted and designed Draft Report due 15 days after submitting inception report
• Professionally formatted and designed Final Report due 5 days after draft report review and feedback with clear recommendation for future programmes
• PowerPoint presentation of the summary of the findings

The report should be presented in the standard evaluation report format of CBM with at least a summary in English.