Terre des hommes PRM 8 Project End-Evaluation Consultancy Opportunity

Terre des hommes (Tdh)

Terms of reference (ToR) for the PRM 8 Project End-Evaluation in Dadaab refugee camp and host community villages, Garissa County, Kenya.


Terre des hommes (Terre des hommes) is Switzerland’s largest children’s aid organization. For more than half a century, the Foundation has been working alongside children in distress.

It struggles to enforce their rights, without political, racial or denominational concerns.

In more than 30 countries, Terre des hommes protects children against exploitation and violence, improves the health of children and their mothers, and provides psychological support and material assistance in times of humanitarian crisis.

Terre des hommes has been present in Kenya since 2011 and is currently supporting access to basic services for populations affected by displacement, natural crises and poverty in Dadaab refugee camps, in Garissa County and in Korogocho slum in Nairobi.

The intervention in Dadaab refugee camps is focused on prevention and response to child protection needs while strengthening protection community-based mechanisms in the refugee operation and its host communities.

In Korogocho informal settlements, Terre des hommes implements early child development activities and child protection activities coupled with an emergency intervention to mitigate the effects of COVID-19.


Terre des hommes foundation (Terre des hommes) with support from the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), has been working to provide protection, assistance, and sustainable solutions for refugees, asylum seekers and victims of conflict in the Dadaab refugee camp, Garissa County, Kenya.

Through one year funding cycles since 2013, Terre des hommes been implementing the program:

Building stronger child protective communities through response, empowerment, participation, and inclusion. The program targets children and families in Hagadera, Ifo and Dagahaley refugee camps and 8 surrounding villages (Alinjugur, Yumbis, Welmarer and Borehole 5 in Fafi sub-county and Bulla Nyanya, Labasigale, Welhar, Bulla Kheir in Dadaab sub-county). The just ended funding cycle ran from August 24, 2021 to August 23, 2022.

The program’s goal is for Dadaab’s children in Hagadera, Ifo and Dagahaley camps and host communities live in safety and well-being through sustained quality services, participation and empowerment in a protective and inclusive environment.

Three objectives form the pathways towards achieving the main goal.

They are:


The evaluation is a Tdh end-cycle (final) summative evaluation to be conducted through an external firm or consultant intending to inform programme management and the donor about the effectiveness and impact of the project.

The main objective is to evaluate the program’s impact against the desired results as articulated in the project’s result framework during a period of August 24, 2021 to August 23, 2022. Recommendations will be used at a strategic level to improve learning for future interventions.

The evaluation specific objectives aim to.

  • Assess the progress of the project’s indicators against the targets, as articulated in the result-
  • Assess the achievement of objectives and outcome of the project.
  • Assess the overall project’s performance from planning, implementation and knowledge management by identifying the key strengths and areas of gaps and make the necessary recommendations for improvement.
  • Identify the existing gaps in the project and come-up with recommendations to improve the project design and implementation as well as to document vital lessons-learned/best practices for future strategies and interventions for refugees, asylum seekers and host communities.
  • Support the use of relevant and timely contributions to organisational learning, informed decision-
    making processes resulting from the analysis, conclusions or recommendations as well as and accountability for results.
  • Endorse Tdh`s obligation on transparency and Accountability to the Affected Populations and donors as well as assess the effectiveness of Tdh`s complaints, feedback and response mechanisms`
    effectiveness and the level of beneficiaries’ usage.


The scope should focus on all the objectives of the PRM project and the indicators therein as below;

Objective 1: Respond to urgent child protection needs through life-saving and practical case management of at- risk children, including undocumented persons.

Objective 2: Fortify community-led Child Protective Mechanisms through expanded capacity building in view of eventual inclusion and ownership of child protection by the community.

Objective 3: Provide tools to enable and empower a community-owned child protective environment.

The evaluation will exclusively be on the PRM project (August 24, 2021 to August 23, 2022).

The primary geographical scope will be Hagadera, Ifo and Dagahaley refugee camps and 8 surrounding villages (Alinjugur, Yumbis, Welmarer and Borehole 5 in Fafi sub-county and Bulla Nyanya, Labasigale, Welhar, Bulla Kheir in Dadaab sub-county)


Project’s performance should be evaluated against the evaluation criteria of relevance, coverage, effectiveness, coherence and coordination, efficiency, sustainability and impact. In total, the evaluation criteria form the basis and guidance for the evaluation suggested questions as presented below.



1. To what extent did the activities, outputs and outcomes remain sound and pertinent as initially intended?

2. Was the project in line with local needs and priorities?

3. To what extent was the selection of beneficiaries consistent with the project selection criteria, and did
the selection criteria adequately target the populations most in need of stabilisation and revitalisation


1. Who were the major groups in need of humanitarian assistance?

2. Of these groups, who were provided with humanitarian assistance?

3. What, if any, were the differential impacts of this humanitarian assistance on different groups or


1. What was the overall progress towards the expected results? Were there significant challenges that
hindered the realisation of the planned results?

2. What were the components and delivery approaches that were most effective, and which were least
effective? What needed to be done to improve the performance to achieve the expected results?

3. Did the program adequately apply ‘Do No Harm’ principles?

4. Did outputs lead to the intended outcomes/results?


1. Were project activities and aims in line with main humanitarian aims?

2. Were project activities coordinated with other actors?


1. How did the following aspects contribute to the project: execution, organisation, experience of the personnel, technical expertise, administration, financial management, training, monitoring and reporting?

2. Was the project implemented according to the workplan?

3. Was the project’s progress on schedule?

4. Does the program have clear reporting lines?

5. How efficiently were the resources used to achieve the intended results in line with the implementation


1. Are structures, resources and processes in place to ensure that benefits generated by the project continue once external support ceases?

2. To what extent were relevant target groups actively involved in decision-making concerning project
orientation and implementation?

3. How far was the project embedded in institutional structures that are likely to survive beyond the life
of the project?


1. What are the broader effects of the project on individuals, gender, and age groups, host-communities
and institutions?

2. What are the intended/unintended positive/negative results at the macro (sector) and micro
(household) levels?

3. What were the significant factors influencing the achievement of the project’s outputs and outcomes?


The firm/ consultant is ultimately responsible for the development of the overall methodological approach and evaluation and is expected to propose methodologies that the firm/ consultant considers most appropriate to achieve the aims of this evaluation.

Efforts shall be exerted to safeguard the inclusivity and engagement of relevant stakeholders to bring out their voices on how they perceived the implementation of the project; notably, refugees and asylum seekers, host communities, the most vulnerable conflict-affected populations, government counterparts, community and local authorities’ leaders.

Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) with representatives from the community, government authorities, and other relevant actors (if any) should be held.

Similarly, interviews and FGDs with a selected sample from the affected population should be conducted to assess how the project has responded according to their expectations, objectives and priorities.

The evaluation processes shall be in line with Tdh`s child safeguarding policy, Do no harm principles. The Tdh MEAL team will provide technical support and guidance during the process. The results of this evaluation will contribute to improving learning for future interventions.

The evaluation is expected to take place in-person and to travel to the project implementation area.

Summary of the Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Tools

Table 01: Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Tools

Desk study

  • Review project reports, M&E reports, assessments, selection criteria, work plans and other documents.
  • Implementation strategies identification.
  • Identification of progress and challenges
  • Key project components implemented, and result achieved

Key Informant Interviews

Tool required: Interview Guides for the evaluation purpose, Structured questionnaire


Identify and secure an interview with relevant KIs: programme staff, management, community and stakeholder’s representatives (refugee and asylum seekers, host-communities, governmental authorities, civil societies, and other actors).

  • Qualitative data on project processes and performance about target results
  • Insight on the view of problems and recommended solutions.
  • Different perspectives on issues

Focus group discussion

Tools required: Open-ended Structured/ semi-structured questionnaire


  • FGDs to explore stakeholder opinions and judgements towards the engagement level, processes, and project implementation.
  • In-Depth information on the needs, motivations, intentions, and experiences of the group to assess how the project has responded according to their expectations

Beneficiary Interviews and surveys

Tools required: Structured questionnaire to provide quantitative information


  • Identify and secure interviews with Beneficiaries (sample for each activity should be selected based on a statistically relevant sample per the survey system, that is, a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 5) with the total beneficiary count as the sampling frame.

Comparative non-beneficiary interviews and surveys

Tools required: Structured questionnaire to provide quantitative information


  • Identify and secure interviews with comparable individuals, profiled but not selected (sample for this activity should be selected based on a statistically relevant sample per the survey system, that is, a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 5%)


The evaluator should produce:

1. Inception report as per the firms/ consultant’s template including the tools/materials/templates. The inception report MUST include the detailed evaluation work-plan and evaluation matrix.

2. Sharing detailed data collection plans and tools in time for Tdh to be able to conduct quality assurance.

3. Sharing all the data collected from the different sources.

4. Briefing and debriefing meetings in addition to the routine meetings and discussions with the Tdh team.

5. The final evaluation report (based on the firms/consultant`s template, incorporating comments and
technical inputs from the reference group) with a summary of the evaluation brief (2-pager) and a

6. Updated results framework that clearly shows the status/value of Project indicators visa-vis the targets


A consultancy firm/ consultant with valid registrations, and it should have legal registration paperwork in Kenya and formal access to the locations of the programme implementation.

The selected firm/ consultant should possess the following minimum qualifications as follows:

Qualifications and experience

Academic skills

Master’s degree in advanced applied research/evaluation methods/ economics, business, or any related
academic discipline or an affiliation with a research institution or a university, holding a PhD, or being in pursuit of a PhD in a relevant field is an advantage.

Previous Experience

  • 5 of years evaluating humanitarian programmes
  • At least two evaluation contracts of similar value, nature and complexity implemented over the last
    three years or more.
  • Strong background in monitoring and evaluation techniques and ideal experience in conflict-affected countries.
  • Conversant with the context in Dadaab will be an added advantage.
  • Experience in developing and implementing Evaluations with the UN, International NGOs or donors.
  • Familiarity with the OECD/DAC evaluation framework.
  • Excellent knowledge and experience in survey design, implementation of surveys and statistical data analysis.
  • Excellent analytical, communication, writing and presentation skills in English.
  • Ability to analyse complex interventions.


  • • Creates a respectful office environment free of harassment and retaliation and promotes the
    prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA).
    • Accepts and gives constructive criticism.
    • Follows all relevant procedures, processes, and policies related to the organisational principles.
    • Meets deadline, cost, and quality requirements for outputs.
    • Monitors own work to correct errors or incorporate inputs.
    • Takes responsibility for meeting commitments and for any shortcomings.


  • • Identifies the immediate and peripheral programme staff of own work.
    • Establishes and maintains productive working relationships with staff.
    • Identifies and monitors changes in the needs of evaluation, including donors, governments and project
    • Keeps staff/managers informed of developments and setbacks related to the evaluation.


The interested firm/ consultant should submit a technical proposal with a detailed evaluation methodology, indicative work plan, and the overall approach to the evaluation and an all-inclusive budget proposal no later than 16th September 2022.

The submission of proposals (technical and financial) and/or related questions should be directed via email : ken.tenders@tdh.ch

The submission should include the followings:

  • Company/ Consultant profile including a history of similar projects (if applicable);
  • A cover letter;
  • CV and biographies of independent consultant/consulting firm and key assessment team members (if any);
  • References for each evaluation team member or the firm;
  • An example of a recent evaluation report.