Terms of Reference
Evaluation of the
Conn@ct.Now Programme in Burundi
1.
Background
War Child Holland (WCH) is an independent and impartial international non-governmental organization investing in a peaceful
future for children and young people affected by armed conflict. We strive to empower children and young people while enabling
adults to bring about positive and lasting change in the lives of conflict affected children and young people.
WCH has been working in Burundi since 2008. The Conn@ct.Now program funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs ran
from 2011 to 2015 and constituted the backbone of War Child interventions in the country. As part of the program, War Child
Holland supports communities in reflecting on the child rights situation of children, in identifying child protection challenges and
in developing community action plans and individual responses. War Child Holland also supports the development of (existing)
community structures like Child Protection Committees, adult- youth- and children’s clubs, School Committees, and Village Savings
and Loans Associations when appropriate. Through these local structures the larger community is reached. Psychosocial support
is always an integrated element of the approach. Through this integrated community-based approach, War Child Holland aims to
ensure local involvement, ownership and sustainability at community level. The approach is implemented in cooperation with
local partners.
2.
Objective of the evaluation
The evaluation will enable War Child Holland to assess the Conn@ct.Now program in terms of:
1. Relevance: To identify
 To what extent the programme and its activities were relevant to the needs and priorities of children and youth and other
targeted actors – including the most vulnerable population?
2. Effectiveness: to assess and make recommendations on
 To what extent the program has resulted in the planned outcomes as formulated in the program log frame? (including an
assessment on the component of capacity building of local implementing partners)
 To what extent the programme has directly or indirectly resulted in unexpected positive and/or negative outcomes for the
targeted communities?
 What were the factors influencing the effectiveness of the programme (both positively and negatively)?
 To what extent was the methodology used effective in achieving the outcomes?
 To what extent were M&E, quality control and reflection processes in operation? And to what extent were findings of M&E,
quality control and reflection processes used to adapt/improve the programme?
3. Efficiency: to assess if the programme has made an efficient use of resources in terms of money, staff, time and number of
beneficiaries reached
 To what extent has the programme been carried out efficiently?
 What were the major factors affecting efficiency and how could they be minimized in the future?
4. Sustainability:
 To what extent has the programme been designed and implemented with an incorporated strategy for sustainability (e.g.
incorporation in local government plans or transfer of knowledge and skills to local actors)?
 To what extent has the programme generated sustainable outcomes?
1
3.
Scope of the evaluation
The scope of the evaluation is limited to:
1. Programmatic scope: the evaluation concerns the Connect Now programme, carried out by War Child Holland and partners.
The evaluation will focus on the community structures (Child Protection Committees; adult, youth and children’s clubs; School
Committees; Village Savings and Loans Associations, Child Friendly Spaces, hosting families, etc.), which have been set up by
communities, with the support of War Child Holland, as well as the trainings that have been provided to these structures.
2. Geographical area: the evaluation will be carried out in a sample of supported communities in Burundi.
3. Timeframe: In Burundi, the evaluation concerns the batch of collines, supported between September 2013 and October 2015.
4. Population: the evaluation focuses on outcomes for the project participants directly involved in implementing the approach
and on outcomes for the broader communities in which the approach was implemented. At the start of the evaluation, War
Child Holland and the evaluator will agree on a feasible sample size.
4.
Guiding principles
War Child Holland highly values a quality and ethically just evaluation process. Therefore the following should be taken into
account as guiding principles for the evaluation:
1. Participatory research: project stakeholders like local partners, War Child Holland staff and direct participants (including
children) are not mere objects of evaluation processes. They should be participating in the design, execution and follow up of
evaluations so they can influence them and benefit from them. Without the participation of these stakeholders, the
evaluations themselves will not generate valuable information for steering, project revision and accountability. In line with its
rights-based approach, War Child Holland makes sure that project stakeholders are participating as much as possible in
evaluations. Therefore rather than evaluators taking on an expert’s role, the views of project stakeholders should be taken as
a starting point.
2. Utilization-focused: spending evaluation budgets on proving that money is being spent well should not be the objective of
evaluations. Although upward, horizontal and downward accountability are of high importance, each evaluation should have
a learning character and be utilization-focused, thus looking into best practices, scope for improvement and lessons learnt,
with the aim to give concrete guidance to further improvement of War Child Holland’s work. The evaluation process should
in itself be a learning process.
3. Compliance with professional and ethical standards: for the evaluation, the OECD/DAC quality standards for development
evaluation should be complied with. Please note that Inclusion and non-discrimination should be primary considerations: no
evaluation carried out under War Child Holland’s responsibility or name may exclude people because of their gender, age,
religious or ethnic background. Participation in the evaluation should be voluntarily and based on informed consent. Privacy,
confidentiality and the best interests of respondents must be respected. In line with the Do No Harm principle, the evaluation
process should never harm participants physically or psychologically and specific attention should be paid to protection risks.
When operating in situations of conflict, evaluators must be aware of the parties involved in the conflict and of their dynamics.
Care must be taken to maintain impartiality and independence and to avoid inflaming social tensions/conflict or endangering
community members or staff. Child safeguarding principles are taken into consideration throughout the evaluation process
and also apply to the evaluator. Action is taken when during the evaluation process, children report cases of abuse.
5.
Methodology
The evaluator is invited to suggest an appropriate evaluation methodology that is in line with the objective and scope of the
evaluation and the guiding principles for this evaluation. During the design of the evaluation methodology, the evaluator will make
sure that:
 Existing resources are used, such as output and outcome monitoring data, annual reports, year plans, community action plans,
financial data (budgets and expenditure) and other secondary materials like evaluations of similar approaches of other NGOs;
 The views and opinions of various stakeholders of various age groups are taken into account (i.e. project participants directly
involved in implementing the approach and the broader communities in which the approach was implemented);
 A combination of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are used, such as surveys, interviews, focus group
discussions or more participatory techniques, such as mapping, diagramming or self-assessments. Case studies may also
provide more in-depth information;
 Evaluation findings are triangulated and validated;
 Sampling decisions are recorded in the evaluation report and justified.
At the start of the evaluation, the evaluator provides a very short inception report, describing the way that the chosen evaluation
methods, data sources, sampling and indicators will support the evaluation questions.
2
6.



7.




8.
Roles and responsibilities
War Child Holland is responsible for coordination/guidance, logistical arrangements, provision of the needed project(s)
documents for review, approval of inception report, review and discussion of the draft report, approval of the final report,
payment for the consultancy and dissemination of the report to all stakeholders (including participants at community level);
War Child Holland Focal Points will be the Senior Advisor PM&E in Head Office and War Child Holland’s Programme
Development Manager in Burundi.
The evaluator is responsible for the design (inception report), implementation, analysis and reporting of the evaluation, in
liaison with the War Child Holland project staff. The evaluator will present and discuss preliminary findings during a debrief
workshop with relevant staff members of War Child Holland and local partners.
Deliverables
Before commencing the data collection and based on consultations with War Child Holland, a short inception report is
presented by the evaluator, in which selected evaluation methods (including tools), data sources, sampling and indicators to
respond to the evaluation questions are presented to War Child Holland;
All data collected through quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods, will be consolidated in an organised data file;
A preliminary findings debrief workshop will be held with relevant staff members of War Child Holland and partner
organisations prior to departure from country;
Evaluation report:
 A draft of the evaluation report is submitted to War Child Holland for input within 2 weeks of completing the field work.
 A short summary of findings and recommendations in French to enable relevant stakeholders in country to access and
understand the evaluation findings within 3 weeks.
 A final evaluation report, including documentation of timeline, methodology; analysis, final recommendations within 4
weeks of completing the field work. The final evaluation report will be submitted in soft copy in English.
 The final evaluation report follows the following structure (number of pages per section are an indication):
a. Executive summary (max. 2 pages)
b. Introduction (2 pages)
c. Methodology (3 pages)
d. Findings and analysis (15 pages)
e. Conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations (3 pages)
f. Annexes:
- Bibliography of consulted secondary sources
- Documented evaluation methods / data collection tools (in English and French)
- List of key informants
Profile of evaluator
Essential:
- Relevant academic qualifications and field experience;
- Knowledge and experience in child protection and community-based approaches;
- Extensive experience in the design and implementation of evaluations;
- Excellent analytical and report writing skills;
- Fluency in English and French (both spoken and written).
- Understanding of issues and sensitivities required when working with vulnerable groups;
- Experience with participatory research methodologies, preferably with children;
- Ability to operate independently with minimal supervision
Desirable:
- Experience of evaluating or managing child protection and psychosocial programs
- Knowledge of and experience in Burundi
9.
Time frame
The evaluation is expected to take place in January/February 2016, for a total of maximum 30 working days, including
preparation, evaluation design, travel, field work, report writing and presentation of findings and recommendations to War Child
Holland. The following planning serves as a guideline. Consultant(s) are asked to provide a more detailed planning proposal.
3
Time frame
 Preparation, document analysis, consultations with War Child Holland staff, development of short inception report
describing the evaluation design – max. 6 days (Burundi based or remote via Skype)
 Field work including meeting with project participants, members of the broader communities, local partners– max. 10 days
 Presenting the preliminary findings in country and collection of feedback - 2 days
 Report writing – max. 6 days (remote)
 Final report production including incorporating changes after feedback and possibly editing some video material – max. 6
days (remote)
Note: The timeframe might be affected by the current unstable situation in country - some flexibility is expected by the consultant.
10.
Submission of proposals
To apply please send:
 A 2-3 page expression of interest which includes first ideas about the methodology and approach, a description of
deliverables, a planning and a brief summary of qualifications;

A budgetary proposal including:
1. Working days per evaluation phase (inception, primary data collection; reporting)
2. Travel costs
3. Boarding & lodging
4. Other costs (including visa)
5. Unforeseen (max. 5%)
6. Taxes
7. The total budget
The budgetary proposal should be clear about the honorarium of the evaluator(s) and the number of working days required.

A CV outlining relevant skills and experience.
The deadline for bids is 15th December 2015 (COB). Make sure to use the following hyperlink to apply:
http://warchild.onlinevacatures.nl/en/Vacancy/Apply/56901
Applications will be evaluated based on the following criteria:
o Technical experience and expertise
o Quality of the proposal
o Cost-effectiveness of the proposal
The consultant is expected to be available to start the evaluation at the end of January 2016.
11.
Contact details
For more information about the evaluation, please contact Arjen Mulder via arjen.mulder@warchild.nl.
4