Evaluation Specialist – Global Program India: Disaster Resilience, Poverty Reduction, Social Inclusion & Food Security

Terms of Reference (ToR) for End-Evaluation of the Global Program India

Consultants are invited to present offers for the end-evaluation of the Global Program India “Poverty reduction and food security, promotion of social inclusion of particularly marginalized groups and increased resilience to disasters in high-risk areas”

1. Program Information

Program Title:

Global Program India: Poverty reduction and food security, promotion of social inclusion of particularly marginalized groups and increased resilience to disasters in high-risk areas

Program Number:

5193

Program Period:

01.02.2021 – 31.03.2024

Program Evaluation Period:

02.04.2024 – 11.05.2024

Overall Budget:

4,000,000 EUR

Program Donors:

BMZ & Caritas Germany

Project Partner:

Deutscher Caritasverband e. V. (DCV) – Caritas Germany

2. Background and Rationale

The population of remote rural regions could hardly benefit from India’s significant economic growth rate in the last decade. Social and economic inequalities continued to grow there. At the same time, the still strongly entrenched caste system reinforced and cemented these trends. The increase in poverty and malnutrition have been documented by various sources. Vulnerability to disasters is another immense problem in the high-risk rural areas of northeast India, exacerbated by climate change. Marginalised ethnic groups, religious minorities and the casteless are particularly prevented from accessing government support, educational opportunities, and health care.

The Global Program was implemented in the states of Bihar, Assam, Odisha, and West Bengal to address these challenges, with additional exchanges with the neighboring countries of Bangladesh and Nepal. It promoted social participation and access to government welfare and development programs to increase political, economic, and social participation while strengthening self-help capacities and resilience. The program aimed to improve the quality of life of marginalised populations and thus contributed to the achievement of SDGs 2, 10 and 13. The program was financed by the German Ministry for Cooperation (BMZ) and implemented by 24 civil society organisations and benefited a total direct target group of 492,150 people and an indirect target group of 400.000 people in 260 villages. The implementing 24 civil society organizations have many years of project and program experience in the fields of disaster risk reduction, food and nutrition security and social inclusion and are well connected in the selected regions with other institutions of civil society and government at the micro, meso and macro level.

The overall objective of the program is: The contribution to the achievement of SDG 2, 10 and 13 leads to an improved quality of life of marginalized populations in Bihar, Odisha, Assam and West Bengal with the Intended impact: Improved access to government social benefits, improved self-help capacity and more effective implementation of government development program increase the resilience of particularly marginalized populations to disasters, increase food security and promote joint implementation of government-mandated strategies for social inclusion and political participation of marginalized minorities.

The overall outcome of the program is: Improved access to government social benefits, increased self-help capacity, and increased interaction between civil society initiatives and government agencies will lead to more effective implementation of government development programs and increase the resilience of particularly marginalized populations to disasters, increase their food security, and promote joint implementation of government-mandated strategies for the social integration of marginalized minorities.

The program has four specific outcomes:

• Outcome 1: Increasing disaster resilience: The vulnerability of the population to disasters and the number of victims and extent of damage caused by disasters are reduced by improving the disaster management system at the national, state, and local levels.
• Outcome 2: Improving food security: Food security (nutrition) has been improved by intensive targeting by means of improved access to government programs.
• Outcome 3: Improved Social inclusion: The social and political participation of Representatives of marginalized groups on social problems (beyond food security and disaster prevention) and their use of corresponding government support services in the field of education, welfare and development has increased.
• Outcome 4: Civil Society Learning Processes: The work of various stakeholder groups (Representatives of target groups, employees of NGO and public authorities) in the areas of disaster preparedness and food security as well as social inclusion has been improved through systematic and regular exchanges at congresses, workshops, studies and further education programs of specialist and higher education institutions, and channels for knowledge transfer are institutionalized.

The program was confronted with challenges, such as Covid-19, natural disasters, and the consequences of FCRA legislation. Since the Corona pandemic, data on child malnutrition in India shows that the proportion of underweight children has increased. Unemployment, the absence of free school meals during the corona lockdown, rising food prices and crop failures have plunged particularly marginalized population groups into even deeper poverty. The Global Hunger Index in India has fallen back into the serious category. Even though the program could achieve as of 31.12.2023 the planned results. Focus was given in the year 2023 to the Nutrition and Food Sector to achieve its high ambition of target of reduction in SAM/MAM cases. Since the current phase of the program is moving to its end, more emphasis is given to looking at meso and macro-level strategies, model upscaling, and implementation of the action plans. In accordance with the program’s upscaling strategy, modules on DRR and Nutrition and Food Security were developed.

The purpose of this evaluation is to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the Global Program as it is coming to its end after three years. The program will not be continued at the current state. The results of the evaluation will help to document lessons learnt and best practice for a potential continuation of the program in the future during a possible second phase.

3. Purpose, Objective and Use

As the Global Program is coming to a closure, the overall objective of this end-evaluation is aimed at assessing the extent to which the project goals and outcomes were achieved, and to which extent the approach and intervention logic of the Global Program contributed to alleviate the problems of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

Specific objectives of the evaluation are:

• Review the impact and coherence of the program in the changing context (e.g. national strategies incl. national implementation strategy for 2030 agenda, regional and international strategies, national and state level programs (e.g. Nutrition Mission, National and State Disaster Management Authority, Climate Action Plan etc.) with its limitations and challenges, and assess whether the overarching development results of the program contributed to the national- and state governmental strategies in India.
• Assess the effectiveness and sustainability of the program achievements. What has the program done to ensure that the access to government social benefits, self-help capacity and the implementation of government development programs increased the resilience of particularly marginalized populations (program approaches, best practices, models, etc.). To what extent did the program succeed in facilitating access to these government schemes?
• Assess the relevance of the program, in particular to what extent is the chosen program concept in the sectors of DRR, NFS and Social Inclusion addressing the core problems and needs of the target group(s).
• Assess the effectiveness of the program, to assess whether the program´s architecture and management structure were appropriate regarding the outputs achieved. To what extent was the program architecture, with its different roles and responsibilities, appropriate to coordinate and steer a program of such size?
• Mutual learning and exchange: What is the knowledge gained about the aspect of mutual learning and exchange of partners in their different roles and expertise’s?
• Multi-level approach: What lessons were learned?
• What achievements have been needed at the micro level to strengthen social participation at the meso level?
• Sustainability: What structural change has been achieved with the Global Programme?
• Draw specific recommendations for ensuring the achievement of intended results of this program with special focus on micro,- meso- and macro-level, and pay special attention to models developed by the partners with potential for scaling-up in a potential second phase.

4. Scope of Work

The end-evaluation should cover all four outcomes with its activities from the start of the program in February 2021 till the end of the program on 31st March 2024.

The evaluation will focus on selected areas in the four states Bihar, Odisha, Assam, and West Bengal where the program was implemented, and

should adhere to international evaluation standards and should be in accordance with the OECD_DAC criteria, including the ALNAP criteria focusing on the following:

Coherence:

To assess the coherence of the program objectives with other interventions in the country.

The program concept is coherent with the relevant strategic reference frameworks:

• Which strategic reference frameworks exist for the program? (e.g., national strategies incl. national implementation strategy for 2030 agenda, regional and international strategies, national and state level programs (e.g. Nutrition Mission, National and State Disaster Management Authority, Climate Action Plan etc) sectoral, cross-sectoral change strategies, safeguards, and gender, etc.)
• To what extent is the program concept in line with the relevant strategic reference frameworks?
• To what extent are the interactions (synergies/trade-offs) of the intervention with other sectors reflected in the program concept – also regarding the sustainability dimensions (ecological, economic, and social)?
• To what extent is the program concept in line with the relevant Government programs (If applicable)?
• To what extent is the program concept in line with the (national) objectives of the 2030 agenda? To which Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) is the program supposed to contribute?
• To what extent is the program concept subsidiary to partner efforts or efforts of other relevant organisations (networking with NGO, Government institutions, etc.)?
• To what extent does the intervention add value and avoid duplication?

Impact:

The intended overarching development results have occurred or are foreseen (plausible reasons):

• To which overarching development results is the program supposed to contribute (national strategy for implementing 2030 Agenda, SDGs)? Which of these intended results at the impact level can be observed or are plausible to be achieved in the future? (Government programs, e.g., Nutrition Mission, National and State Disaster Management Authority, Climate Action Plan etc.)
• Indirect target group and ‘Leave No One Behind’ (LNOB): Is there evidence of results achieved at indirect target group level/specific groups of population? To what extent have targeted marginalized groups (such as women, children, young people, elderly, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples, refugees, IDPs and migrants, and the poorest of the poor) been reached?

The program objective (outcome) of the program contributed to the occurred or foreseen overarching development results (impact):

• What contribution did the program make to achieve higher-level development policy impact (macro level)?
• To what extent is the impact of the program positively or negatively influenced by framework conditions, other policy areas, strategies, etc.? How did the program react to this?
• What would have happened without the program?
• To what extent has the program made an active and systematic contribution to widespread impact and were scaling-up mechanisms applied? If not, could there have been potential? Why was the potential not exploited? To what extent has the program made an innovative contribution (models/best practices)? Which innovations have been tested in different regional contexts? How are the innovations evaluated by which partners?
• To what extent has the program contributed at micro,- meso,- and macro level to improve social participation, the access to welfare and development programs (Govt. Nutrition Programs, etc.)?
• To what extent has the program contributed to prevention and protection measures of disasters)?

No program-related (unintended) negative results at impact level have occurred – and if any negative results occurred the program responded adequately. The occurrence of additional (not formally agreed) positive results at impact level has been monitored and additional opportunities for further positive results have been seized:

• Which (unintended) negative or (formally not agreed) positive results at impact level have been observed? Are there negative trade-offs between the ecological, economic, and social dimensions (according to the three dimensions of sustainability in the Agenda 2030)? Were positive synergies between the three dimensions exploited?
• To what extent were risks of (unintended) results at the impact level assessed in the monitoring system? Were risks already known during the planning phase?
• What measures have been taken by the program to avoid and counteract the risks/negative results?
• To what extent have the framework conditions played a role regarding the negative results? How did the program react to this?
• To what extent were potential (not formally agreed) positive results and potential synergies between the ecological, economic, and social dimensions monitored and exploited?

Sustainability:

Prerequisite for ensuring the long-term success of the program: Results are anchored in (partner) structures. Forecast of durability: Results of the program are permanent, stable, and long-term resilient:

• What has the program done to ensure that the results can be sustained in the medium to long term by the partners themselves?
• In what way are advisory contents, approaches, methods, or concepts of the program anchored/institutionalized in the (partner) system?
• To what extent are the results continuously used and/or further developed by the target group and/or implementing partners?
• To what extent are resources and capacities at the individual, organizational or societal/political level in the partner country available (long-term) to ensure the continuation of the results achieved?
• To what extent are the results of the program durable, stable and resilient in the long-term under the given conditions?
• What risks and potentials are emerging for the durability of the results and how likely are these factors to occur? What has the program done to reduce these risks?
• what should be done to enhance the achievement of intended results and their sustainability considering the possibility of a follow-up program

Relevance:

To assess the relevance of the program objectives vs the identified needs.

The program concept matches the needs and priorities of the target group(s):

• Did the planned program approach address the key development problems?
• To what extent is the chosen program concept in the sectors of DRR, NFS and Social Inclusion geared to the core problems and needs of the target group(s)?
• How are the different perspectives, needs and concerns of women and men represented in the program concept?
• To what extent was the program concept designed to reach particularly disadvantaged groups (LNOB principle, as foreseen in the Agenda 2030)? How were identified risks and potentials for human rights and gender aspects included into the program concept?
• To what extent are the intended impacts regarding the target group(s) realistic from today’s perspective and the given resources (time, financial, partner capacities)?

The program concept is adequately designed to achieve the chosen program objective, assessment of current results model and results hypotheses (Theory of change) of actual project logic:

• To what extent was the program objective and the given resources realistic (time, financial, partner capacities)?
• To what extent were the activities, instruments and outputs adequately designed to

achieve the program objective?

• To what extent were the underlying results hypotheses of the program plausible?
• To what extent was the chosen system boundary (sphere of responsibility) of the

program (including partner) clearly defined and plausible?

• Were potential influences of other donors/organisations outside of the program’s sphere

of responsibility adequately considered (e.g., cooperation with other organizations, IAG´s, other networks, etc.)?

• To what extent was the assumptions and risks for the program complete and plausible?
• To what extent did the strategic orientation of the program address potential changes in its framework conditions?
• How was the complexity of the framework conditions and guidelines handled? How was any possible overloading dealt with and strategically focused?

The program concept was adapted to changes in line with requirements and re-adapted where applicable:

• What changes have occurred during program implementation? (e.g., FCRA, Covid-19, etc.)?
• How were the changes dealt with regarding the program concept and how has the program been adapted in regard to the Covid-19 pandemic?
• Has Covid-19 affected the performance and achievements of the program?

Effectiveness:

The program achieved the objective (outcome) on time in accordance with the program objective indicators:

• To what extent have the agreed program objectives (outcome) been achieved?
• Was the program approach best for achieving the objectives?

The activities and outputs of the program contributed substantially to the program objective achievement (outcome):

• Did the program contribute via activities, instruments, and outputs to the achievement of the program objective (outcome)? (e.g., best/existing practices)
• Implementation strategy: Which factors in the implementation contributed successfully to or hinder the achievement of the program objective? (e.g., external factors, program architecture, steering committees, etc.)
• What other/alternative factors contributed to the fact that the program objective was achieved or not achieved?
• What would have happened without the program?

No project-related (unintended) negative results have occurred – and if any negative results occurred the program responded adequately. The occurrence of additional (not formally agreed) positive results has been monitored and additional opportunities for further positive results have been seized:

• Which (unintended) negative or (formally not agreed) positive results did the program produce at output and outcome level and why?
• How were risks and assumptions as well as (unintended) negative results at the output and outcome level assessed in the monitoring system? Were risks already known during the concept phase?
• What measures have been taken by the program to counteract the risks and (if applicable) occurred negative results (FCRA, Covid-19, etc.)? To what extent were these measures adequate?
• To what extend were potential (not formally agreed) positive results at outcome level monitored and exploited?

Efficiency:

The program´s architecture and management structure were appropriate regarding the outputs achieved:

• To what extent was the program architecture (organogram) with its different roles and responsibilities appropriate to coordinate and steer the program?
• To what extent was the number of different professional and regional partner organizations contributed to achieve the intended broad impact at micro, – meso- and macro level and the process involved towards achieving the results?

The program’s use of resources was appropriate regarding the outputs achieved:

• To what extent could the outputs have been maximized with the same amount of resources and under the same framework conditions and with the same or better quality (maximum principle)? (Methodological minimum standard: Follow-the-money approach).
• To what extent could outputs have been maximized by reallocating resources between the outputs? (Methodological minimum standard: Follow-the-money approach)
• Were the output/resource ratio and alternatives carefully considered during the design and implementation process – and if so, how? (Methodological minimum standard: Follow-the-money approach)

The program’s use of resources was appropriate regarding achieving the programs’ objective (outcome):

• To what extent could the outcome (program objective) have been maximized with the same amount of resources and the same or better quality (maximum principle)?
• Were the outcome-resources ratio and alternatives carefully considered during the conception and implementation process – and if so, how? Were any scaling-up options considered?
• To what extent were more results achieved through cooperation / synergies and/or leverage of more resources, with the help of other partners, organizations (e.g., co-financing)? If so, was the relationship between costs and results appropriate or did it even improve efficiency?

5. Process

The evaluation will adopt a participatory, transparent, and solution-oriented approach. The evaluation process, as well as the results should be gender-sensitive and human-rights-based. The evaluator will use mixed methods that are able to appropriately address the primary evaluation questions, as well as properly support its derivative conclusion and recommendation.

The evaluation methods to be used may include:

Review of project documentation (Desk Research): An array of major documents should be studied (e.g., mid-term evaluation, proposal, annual reports, monitoring reports, knowledge products, as well as statistical data, project documents, etc.) Existing program documents and reports are to be shared with the evaluator to facilitate the realization of the tasks. The evaluator is invited to request additional documents that may be needed for the completion of the evaluation.

Interviews with selected key informants and key players: (semi-)structured Interviews with beneficiaries are a must and should be supported by interview protocols and the list of respondents (e.g., direct program beneficiaries, local staff, employees of government and civil society organizations, etc.).

The selection criteria should be based on gender, age, beneficiaries/non-beneficiaries, and geographical spread in the program regions.

The exact sample size should be proposed by the evaluator and agreed together with Caritas Germany before the start of the evaluation.

Direct observation during field visits: Partners will be randomly selected for field visits according to their working areas (DRR, Food Security/Nutrition, and Social Inclusion). Eight partners organizations should be visited in total and each of the four states should be included.

Focus group discussions with beneficiaries, local leaders, government representatives, and local partner staff, etc.

The following outputs must be provided in the period from 02.04. – 11.05.2024. The timeline is provisional and might be subject to minor changes, except the mission dates which are binding.

Central project evaluations are divided into two phases: (1) an inception phase with the preparation of the inception report on the methodological approach and (2) a data collection and evaluation phase with the evaluation mission and the preparation of the evaluation report.

The procedure for the evaluation, including clarification of roles, can be seen in the following process overview.

Part I Inception Phase

To meet the required high methodical quality standards of DCV project evaluations it is essential for the evaluation team to (1) gain a profound understanding of the evaluation object, cover all important aspects of the project and the stakeholders perspectives, (2) establishing evaluability i.e. the examination of the project’s results logic (theory of change), the collection of evaluation questions from the partner and target group perspective and finally (3) the examination of available data, among other things, from the partner systems. (4) A carefully prepared inception report written by the evaluation team and approved by the DCV is the result of this inception phase.

The inception phase includes a preliminary inception mission with the following work steps:

• one day workshop with the project team for (re)-constructing the results model, formulating results hypotheses, defining and understanding the evaluation object,
• SMART analysis of indicators,
• checking data availability, monitoring (partner) systems and observation tools,
• defining evaluation basis, especially for the impact criteria,
• working together with the project team on the efficiency tool developed,
• identifying relevant interview partners, updating the stakeholder map and if possible, identifying a control group,
• specifying the involvement of partners and target group,
• collecting evaluation questions of the stakeholders and eventually conducting explorative interviews.

Prior to the inception mission, the evaluation team submits a completion schedule, which must be approved by the DCV before the mission.

Work step

When

Responsible

Collaborating

To be informed

Provision of documents

02.04.2024

DCV (standard evaluation documents)

Caritas India and partners (project documents, MTE, etc. )

Clarification of assignment incl. role clarification in evaluator team by Skype

02.04.2024

DCV

International evaluator, local/regional evaluator

Launch meeting

inception phase by Skype/Teams

to clarify roles and determine information requirements

05.04.2024

DCV

International evaluator, local/regional evaluator

Desk study

02.-08.04.2024

International evaluator/ local/regional evaluator

DCV

Letter informing central stakeholders at the start of evaluation (inc. information on process and roles)

03.04.2024

DCV

Caritas India and partner organizations

Draft and Approval inception mission schedule

08.04.2024

Draft:

International and local/regional evaluator

Approval by DCV

Preparation for travel (Inception Mission)

02.-08.04.2024

International and local/regional evaluator

Caritas India

Briefing Inception Mission

08.04.2024

International and local/regional evaluator

DCV/project team,

Kick-off

workshop

10.04.2024

International and local/regional evaluator

DCV/project team,

Debriefing Inception Mission

11.04.2024

International and l local/regional evaluator

DCV/project team, (partners)

Approval of IR until

12.04.2024

DCV

If necessary: Final meeting after inception Phase by Skype

Evaluation Unit, int. evaluator

(Local/regional evaluator)

Part II Evaluation Phase

Based on preparations during the inception phase, the evaluation mission intends to collect the necessary data for the evaluation by conducting interviews with the involved stakeholders and by other methods defined in the inception phase. Data are then analyzed, triangulated, assessed, and validated systematically. Based on the findings, the evaluation report is elaborated.

Prior to the evaluation mission, the evaluation team submits a completion schedule, which has to be approved by the DCV before the mission.

Work step

When

Responsible

Collaborating

To be informed

Draft and Approval evaluation mission schedule and interview plan until

08.04.2024

Draft:

Int. & local/regional. evaluator

Approval by DCV

Preparation for travel (evaluation mission) until

07.04.2024

International evaluator

local/regional, project team

Launch meetings/ evaluation mission

International and local/regional evaluator

DCV/project team

Presentation and debriefing of preliminary results (validation workshop)

02.05.2024

International and local/regional evaluator

DCV/project team, partner(s)

Submission of evaluation report

11.05.2024

International evaluator

local/regional evaluator

Quality check 1 on evaluation report until

DCV

Revision 1 of evaluation report until

International evaluator

(local/regional evaluator)

Approval of evaluation report

DCV

Debriefing

International evaluator

DCV

6. Outputs and Deliverables

The following outputs and deliverables need to be submitted by the evaluation team to DCV in English language:

• an inception report of no longer than 15 pages.
• a PowerPoint presentation for debriefing purposes after the evaluation mission.
• a final report of max. 30 pages (plus attachments).
• a five-page executive summary.
• a one-page document in the specified format containing the core messages of the evaluation.
• Recommendations for the second half of the implementation period and concerning the possibility of a follow-up program.

During a validation workshop, the evaluators will present the findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to Caritas Germany, Caritas India, and its partners. Stakeholders can be invited to make and to react to recommendations.

7. Expert Profile of the Evaluation Team

The evaluation team consists of two members (International lead- and assistant consultant) and is expected to perform the end-evaluation in a strictly methodical manner to produce verifiable information and make recommendations that are sufficiently valid and reliably based on dependable data and analysis, which are accessible to the client.

The contractor is responsible for the choice and integration of the Assistant Consultant. The CV of the evaluators must be approved by Caritas Germany.

The Lead evaluator should meet the following requirements:

• Thorough experience of evaluation regarding empirical social research, evaluation of programs in international cooperation, application of OECD-DAC criteria for evaluation, managing participatory evaluation processes
• Experience with complex evaluation designs and efficiency analysis (e.g., follow-the money approach)
• Use of methods in empirical social research (qualitative and quantitative methods, data collection and data analysis)
• Experience with cross-cutting themes (e.g., gender, climate)
• Sectoral knowledge and experience of at least two of the following topics: DRR, food security & nutrition, social inclusion
• Experience with Global Programs, or similar complex projects, involving a large set of heterogenous partner organizations across various geographies and thematic areas, highly desirable.
• Regional knowledge in South Asia and/or previous work experience in India would be an asset.
• An excellent written and oral command of English and Hindi are mandatory. Local language skills in Oriya, Bengali, Assamese would be an asset.

The Assistant evaluator should meet the following requirements:

• Use of methods in empirical social research (qualitative and quantitative methods, data collection and data analysis)
• Sectoral knowledge and experience in one of the thematic areas: DRR, food security & nutrition, social inclusion
• Experience in qualitative and/or quantitative data collection and data analysis techniques Required
• An excellent written and oral command of Hindi and English. Local language skills in Oriya, Bengali, Assamese would be an asset.

8. Tentative Timetable

The actual evaluation work is to be carried out from 02.04.-11.05.2024, and a total of max. 40 days working days for the International Lead Consultant and 35 working days for the Assistant Consultant.

The timeline for the activities consists of the following phases:

Preparation Phase: 7 days for International Lead Consultant, and 5 days for Assistant Consultant

• Analysis of relevant program documents, as well as further research
• Preparation of inception report and exchange with Caritas Germany and Caritas India
• Kick-off Workshop involving Caritas Germany, Caritas India, and selected partner organizations.

Field Phase: 25 days for the International Lead Consultant, and 25 days for Assistant Consultant (depends on the election time in India)

• Briefing with relevant partners
• Field visits
• Debriefing of selected partners
• Validation Workshop for presentation of draft report with findings involving Caritas Germany, Caritas India, and partners.

Synthesis Phase: 8 days for the International Lead Consultant, and 5 days for Assistant Consultant

• Produce final report including revision as per feedback debriefing.

The key products expected for the evaluation are the following:

Deliverable

Dates

Inception Report and Evaluation Plan

11.04.2024

Draft Report

02.05.2024

Final Report

11.05.2024

The final report must be ready latest till 11.05.2024. The International Lead Consultant should present a detailed work plan and timeframe of all activities including the relevant resource allocation.

9. Management of the Evaluation

The Quality Management Department at Caritas Germany is responsible for planning and steering the evaluation portfolio of central project evaluations. The contractor is responsible for preparation, implementation, quality assurance and backstopping, and reporting.

The evaluation team consists of two members (International Lead- and local Assistant consultant). The Lead consultant is responsible for the choice and integration of the Assistant consultant.

Support by the programme partners covers:

• providing relevant documents
• support to the identification of relevant interview partners
• logistical and organisational support for field visits and workshops (transportation, accommodation, etc.)

The consultants must take all required steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and the communities of which they are members, as well as to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, and conducted in a transparent and impartial manner. Moreover, the evaluation shall contribute to organizational learning and accountability.

Partner orientation is an important characteristic of central project evaluations. This is reflected in the different phases of program evaluation and evaluation management (e.g., by defining the partners’ information requirements in the ToRs, briefing at the local start of evaluation, documentation of partner perspectives, debriefing).

10.Terms of Payment

The evaluator is to receive payment from Caritas Germany in 2 instalments:

• 1st Payment: 50 % upon signing of the contract.

• Final Payment: 50 % upon the submission of the final evaluation report, subject

to its acceptance by Caritas Germany will not settle any payment unless

the consultancy institution accomplished all the tasks in a timely fashion. The

basis for payment scheduling is to be determined during contract negotiations.

Annexes

• Annex 1: Table of content for the Inception Report
• Annex 2: Table of content for Evaluation Report
• Annex 3: Template for Work plan – Timeframe
• Annex 4: Evaluation Matrix Template
• Annex 5: Financial Proposal
• Annex 6: Caritas Internationalis and Caritas Germany Ethical Guidelines and Code of Conduct.

Full ToRs and all Annexes (bottom of page): https://www.caritas-international.de/ueberuns/jobs/jobs.aspx

Homepage: https://www.caritas-international.de/

Global Program Website: https://caritasindia.org/GlobalProgramIndia/

[1] See Financial Proposal Annex 6