Terms of Reference for the Evaluation of Misereor funded Project Phases in Layyah, March 12, 2026 

1.  Introduction and Background

Civil Society Human and Institutional Development Programme (CHIP) through financial assistance of Misereor, a German organization for development cooperation has implemented a series of projects starting from April 01, 2017 and going up to October 31, 2026. The development and humanitarian assistance and partnership with CHIP is spread over a decade with varying scope including community mobilization, human development, livelihood, technical skill development, community physical infrastructure, climate change mitigation and emergencies.   

Each of the three projects regimes under this development assistance has following broader focus: 

• Phase I, 2017–2020, “Inclusive Community Development through Human and Institutional Development in Layyah”;

• Phase II, 2020–2023, “Be the Changemakers Unveil the Talent and Facilitate Utilization of Opportunities for Communal and Individual Development in Layyah”;

• Phase III, 2023–2026, “Climate Friendly and Resource Efficient WASH and Livelihood Means in Layyah”. 

The current project (phase 3)  is in its third year of implementation. The external evaluation has been agreed jointly by CHIP and Misereor as part of the project design. The evaluation is a planned activity in the third year of the current phase and has not been conducted previously for the earlier two phases of the project. However, an internal mid-term review of the current project was also conducted in August 2024, which resulted into redefining project targets majorly caused by unprecedented inflation and the project’s reduced capacity to implement the project as originally envisaged. 

This evaluation covers the latest two projects, including phase II commenced in 2020 to Phase III to the present.  Both CHIP and Misereor are interested in continuing their partnership beyond the current phase. Therefore, this evaluation is not only an accountability exercise but also a strategic learning process. The findings and recommendations are expected to inform future programming decisions, strengthen program design and implementation, potential continuation or expansion of the intervention, and the long-term direction of the partnership andidentifying opportunities for scaling up successful interventions.  

2.Evaluation Objectives

The external evaluation seeks to assess the overall performance, to document achievements and challenges, and draw lessons learned from the third stage of implementation and is to inform the future collaboration between Misereor and CHIP for program intervention in South Punjab. 

The objectives of the evaluation are as under:-

1. To assess the overall performance of the project in terms of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

2. To examine the extent to which the project has achieved its intended outcomes and results, particularly in strengthening adaptive capacities, improving livelihoods, inclusion of vulnerable communities and promoting climate- focussed agricultural practices among vulnerable households.

3. To assess the institutional capacity, implementation approaches, and beneficiary contribution mechanisms that have influenced project performance, ownership, and long-term sustainability.

4. To identify lessons learnt, challenges and provide strategic recommendations for future programming in Layyah and South Punjab.

3. Duration

4. The duration of this assignment is  03 months i.e. starting from May 01, 2026 and concluding on July 30, 2026.

4. Evaluation Questions

CHIP expects the consultant(s) to use a mixed-methods approach for the evaluation, applying the OECD DAC evaluation criteria used by organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The following key questions are recommended; however, the consultant may propose additional questions to ensure comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the project intervention. These questions may be adapted, prioritized, and refined in consultation with the CHIP senior program and management team.

4.1  Relevance

1. To what extent were the project interventions (shelters, emergency supplies, seeds, water channels, streets, drains, skill development, and enterprise establishment) relevant and appropriate for the target groups in Layyah?

2. To what extent did the project strategies improve the living conditions of disadvantaged groups, including women, persons with disabilities (PWDs), and minorities?

3. Were the initial project objectives and design still appropriate over time? (Applicable to the final phase of the project).

4.2  Coherence

1. What synergies existed between the development initiatives supported by Misereor and other CHIP interventions?

2. To what extent was the project consistent with the work of other actors operating in the same context?

3. Were project activities harmonized with those of other actors to avoid duplication of efforts?

4. Where appropriate, are activities harmonized and coordinated with those of other actors and do they complement each other? To what extent does the project create added valuae and at the same time avoid the duplication of work activities? 

4.3 Effectiveness

1. To what extent were the project objectives achieved across different social groups? (Phase-wise assessment). What information is available with regards to achievement of objectives? 

2. How many people were reached by the project, and how does this compare with the planned targets? (Phase-wise / theme-wise).

3. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of project objectives? (Phase-wise). Which activities better led to the achievement of objectives and which did not? 

4.4 Efficiency

1. What evidence is there to indicate that the project was implemented with due regard to economic efficiency under the given circumstances? Was the project implemented in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner? 

2. Were the expected results achieved within an appropriate timeframe? Were adjustments made due to changed conditions? 

3. What is the relationship between the observed results and the resources used?

4.5 Impact

1. What social, economic, political, cultural, and environmental changes occurred for the project beneficiaries? How was gender and other populations like Persons with Disabilities included? 

2. Which external factors contributed to these changes, and to what extent can the observed changes be attributed to the project activities?

3. Did the theory of change or results framework adopted in the project design prove effective?

4. To what extent were environmental considerations taken into account during project implementation (e.g., protection of trees and natural resources)?

4.6  Sustainability

1. To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to continue after the project’s completion at different levels (community, institutional, and economic)?

2. What major factors influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability?

3. What role did risks, conflicts of interest, and the resilience of target groups play in sustaining project outcomes?

4.7 Governance and Organizational Structure

1. How effective were the management and governance structures of CHIP during project implementation?

2. How well did coordination function between the field office, head office, and other stakeholders?

3. Were community feedback and accountability mechanisms in place, and how effective were they?

4.8 Future Direction and Strategic Learning

1. What strategic areas of collaboration between CHIP and Misereor should be prioritized in the next phase of partnership?

2. How can the partnership evolve to better address climate resilience, livelihoods, and social inclusion in South Punjab?

3. Which interventions (livelihood, WASH, community infrastructure, skill development, climate-smart agriculture) demonstrate the greatest potential for scaling up and impact?

4. What gaps remain in addressing the needs of vulnerable communities in the project area?

5. What institutional capacities should be strengthened within CHIP and community organizations for future programming?

6. Were contribution mechanisms equitable and affordable for vulnerable households? How did it affect maintenance of infrastructure and livelihood activities?  

5.  Methodology

The consultant is expected to recommend an overarching participatory, utilization focused, and mixed methods evaluation approach. The design integrates quantitative and qualitative techniques to assess relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability and governance and project organization structure. Special emphasis shall be placed on inclusion (women, persons with disabilities, marginalized groups) and accountability to communities. The evaluation will be implemented in the following phases:

5.1 Inception Phase: (2-3 weeks)

CHIP and Consultant to agree on:

• Agreement between CHIP and Consultant (individual, firm);

• Composition of evaluation team with members from CHIP team and the evaluators;

• Documents’ review, agreeing on evaluation design. Documents to be provided by CHIP;

• Development and agreeing on data collection methods and tools including but not limited to: 

• Key Informant Interview (KII) for individual beneficiaries;

• Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with partner COs;

• Institutional Assessment Checklist;

• Case Study Documentation Template;

• Financial Efficiency Analysis Tool.

• Work plan/ Itinerary

• Evaluation framework and a brief incept report

5.2. Implementation Phase (3-4 weeks) 

• Initial briefing meeting with CHIP Head Office Team 

• Development and agreeing on data collection methods and tools including but not limited to: 

• Key Informant Interview (KII) for individual beneficiaries;

• Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with partner COs;

• Institutional Assessment Checklist;

• Case Study Documentation Template;

• Financial Efficiency Analysis Tool.

• Kick off workshop with CHIP Field Team 

• Field visits, observation and meetings with communities, beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries etc. 

• Meetings with stakeholders (District administration, Health, Education, TEVTA, Social Welfare Department, Labour Department Agriculture department, Rescue department etc.;) 

• Debriefing meetings with project staff and CHIP management 

• Data anaylsis and presentation preparation 

• Evaluation Findings workshop at the district level.

5.3 Documentation and Reporting Phase 

• Draft report submission as per the attached template (Annex I) 

• Final report submission to CHIP and Misereor

6.Phasewise Details 

Following is the phase-wise details of objective, implementation modality and key outputs: 

6.1 Introduction / Inception Meeting 

Objective: To align expectations, clarify scope, confirm evaluation questions, and agree on logistics and roles.

Participants:

External Evaluation Team, CHIP Head Office, CHIP Field Team (Layyah) and Representative from Misereor (if possible)

Key Outputs:

Orientation about projects and phases, sharing of project documents for desk review, finalization of sampling strategy, workplan and agreement on Roles and responsibilities clarified

6.2 Desk Review and Inception Report

Objective: To assess program design logic, performance trends across three phases, and alignment with donor strategy.

Key Outputs:

Quantitative trend data (outputs/outcomes across 10 years);

Budget utilization and cost efficiency data;

Sustainability or exit planning.

Inception Report (refined methodology, tools, sampling framework)

6.3 Finalization and Sharing of Tools

Objective: To ensure contextual appropriateness and ethical compliance.

Tools to be Developed:

Key Informant Interview (KII) for individual beneficiaries;

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with partner COs;

Institutional Assessment Checklist;

Case Study Documentation Template;

Financial Efficiency Analysis Tool.

Quality & Ethics Measures:

Informed consent forms;

Gender sensitive and disability inclusive language;

Translation into Urdu/Saraiki;

6.4 Field Visits

Objective:
To collect primary data from sampled communities and institutions.

Sampling Strategy:

Stratified sampling across three project phases Otherwise suggest sampling strategy;

Representation of gender, disability, youth, and vulnerable groups;

Selection of high performing and low performing sites;

Subject to be Studied

HH survey with direct beneficiaries

KIIs with CHIP staff, government officials, partners/ stakeholders;

FGDs with communities/ COs;

Case studies with success and pitfall learning with any beneficiary.

Responsibility:

Evaluation Team leads;

Local enumerators hired (if survey based); Both male and female enumerators will be engaged to interactwith the relevant groups.

CHIP facilitates access but does not influence responses.

6.5 Stakeholder Meetings

Objective:
To assess coherence, partnerships, and institutional positioning.

Stakeholders:

District Government (Health, Education, Social Welfare/ Labor, TEVTA, Agriculture and Rescue 1122)

Partner organizations (ADO and YLOs etc.)

Tools:

Semi structured or KII;

Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool;

Partnership Mapping Exercise.

Responsibility:

Evaluation Team

6.6 Debriefings (Field Level and Management Level)

Objective:
To validate preliminary findings and reduce factual errors.

Process:

Immediate debrief with field team at end of fieldwork;

Structured presentation of emerging findings;

Clarification of inconsistencies.

Output:

Debrief minutes or Note;

Agreed list of additional documents (if required).

Responsibility:

Evaluation Team presents

CHIP participates

6.7 Data Analysis & Report Writing

Quantitative Analysis:

Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, trend analysis);

Phase comparison (Phase 1 vs Phase 2 vs Phase 3);

Cost-efficiency analysis (cost per beneficiary, cost per outcome).

Qualitative Analysis:

Thematic coding;

Outcome Derivation and triangulation across sources.

Analytical Framework:

OECD/DAC criteria;

Gender and Inclusion lens;

Sustainability scoring framework.

Responsibility:

Evaluation Team

6.8 Submission of Draft Report

Structure of Report to be provided by CHIP and Misereor and attached with the ToRs as annex 1.

6.9 Feedback & Validation

Process:

Circulation of draft to CHIP and Misereor;

Written comments within agreed timeline;

Validation workshop. 

Purpose:

Strengthen ownership;

Improve accuracy;

Increase utility of recommendations.

Responsibility:

CHIP coordinates;

Evaluation Team integrates feedback.

6.10 Finalization and Submission of Final Report

Deliverables:

Final Evaluation Report;

Executive Summary (5–8 pages);

PowerPoint Presentation;

Clean dataset. 

Responsibility:

Evaluation Team

7.  Proposal Requirements

Interested consultants/firms should submit:

• Technical and financial proposal including evaluation methodology while explaining clear understanding of the TORs 

• Proposed workplan and timeline

• Team composition and roles (a short half page CV of each team member) 

• Examples of similar evaluation assignments, carried out in the past

• A detailed financial proposal indicating professional fees, travel costs, field expenses, and taxes.

• At least three references for the previous evaluation work. 

• List of projects carried out in the past three years. 

8.Evaluation of EOIs

The Proposal will be assessed based on the following criteria:

Ethical Considerations in the Evaluation

The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with internationally accepted ethical standards for research and evaluation. The evaluator(s) must ensure that the rights, dignity, and safety of all participants are respected throughout the evaluation process.

The evaluation team will be expected to adhere to the principles of informed consent, confidentiality and privacy, do no harm, respect for cultural and social norms, inclusion and equity and integrity and transparency.  

Minimum Qualification Requirements

The evaluation consultant/firm should meet the following minimum criteria:

• Advanced degree in Development Studies, Social Sciences, Environmental Studies, Economics, Public Policy, or a related discipline.

• At least 5–7 years of professional experience in research, or evaluation in the non-profit or development sector.

• Demonstrated experience in conducting external evaluations using OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.

• Proven experience in livelihood development, climate change adaptation, community infrastructure, or rural development projects.

• Strong understanding of participatory and mixed-methods evaluation approaches including surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews.

• Experience working with international donor-funded projects will be considered an advantage.

• Strong analytical, report writing, and presentation skills in English.