Term of Reference
Midterm Evaluation Prevention+
Since 2016, Rutgers is the lead organisation for Prevention+. Prevention+ is a five-year multi-country programme that addresses the root causes of gender-based violence by focusing on men as agents of change and promoting healthy masculinities based on equality, caregiving, and non-violence. Prevention+ is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and is being carried out in Indonesia, Pakistan, Uganda, Rwanda and MENA countries. Prevention+ is funded under the FLOW (Female Leadership of Women) budget and runs from 2016-2020. More detail of Prevention+ programme can be downloaded on https://www.rutgers.international/programmes/prevention-programme.
Prevention+ has now reached its half-way mark and requires a Mid Term Evaluation (MTR) to take place in Pakistan that will assess the achievements thus far, and the contribution that Prevention+ Pakistan has made to reaching those achievements. For this purpose, the Rutgers Pakistan is looking for engaging consultant(s) to conduct the MTR as per following Terms of Reference.
2. Objectives of the MTR Pakistan
During the first semester of 2018 a mid-term review (MTR) of the Prevention+ programme in Pakistan will be conducted in order to provide insight into the progress of the and to inform strategic decisions on the way forward in the remaining two years of the Prevention+ programme. The review is will pave the way for improved programme delivery for the remaining duration and will propose amendments and recommendations in programme design, implementation arrangements and/or institutional linkages in order to effectively and sustainability contribute to the objectives of the Prevention+. The MTR is an opportunity to build on the Prevention+ Pakistan programme’s existing monitoring and evaluation plans, to review the Theory of Change and main assumptions in the original and country proposal.
The mid-term review needs to answer the overall guiding question:
The MTR needs to address the following objectives:
The mid-term review Pakistan will assess the following areas:
Each area and sub-area has a set of guiding questions. These guiding are leading for the structure of the mid-term review on the whole. See Annex I.
4. Scope of Work and Deliverables
The Evaluation’s findings and recommendations will be thoroughly discussed with the Rutgers Pakistan and program partners during and also at the end of the MTR. The Consultant (s) will complete and submit a draft final report in English. The Lead Consultant will finalize the report in the light of comments/suggestions of stakeholders. The key outputs of the MTR are:
(a) Inception Report: consisting of tools/instrument that will be used in data collection, data collection plan, analysis plan, and report outline format;
(b) Carry out desk review programme documents (proposal, narrative & output reports 2016-17)
(c) Facilitate & conduct 2 days review session with programme partners staff (arranged by Rutgers)
(d) Conduct 18-20 In-depth Interviews with government representatives, alliance members, programme team at national/provincial/district level
(e) First draft of report: consisting of key finding from desk review, In-depth interview, and review session (including preliminary recommendations) at national level;
(f) Second draft of report: consisting of consisting of key finding from desk review, In-depth interview, and review session (including preliminary recommendations) at Provincial/District Level, including analysis result of whole findings and plan of analysis of financial aspects of the program;
(g) All data (both primary & secondary) related to the study
(h) Final Reports: covers the whole of findings, analysis, conclusion and recommendation that refer to guiding questions and objective of MTR. This also include annexes of changes of the program documents to provide clear understanding of program progress.
The report should be in English, logically structured, contain evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations, and should be free of information that is not relevant to the overall analysis. The report should respond in detail to the key focus areas described above. It should include a set of specific recommendations formulated for the program, and identify the necessary actions required to be undertaken, who should undertake those and possible time-lines (if any). Program stakeholders will provide comments on the Draft Report, and the Lead Consultant will finalize the report in view of these comments.
The structure of the final report is pre-set by the Prevention+ programme management. See Annex II
Facilitation for the Consultant: Senior Programme Officer, Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Research will be the focal person for this assignment and will maintain close liaison with the selection consultant for quality assurance.
For presenting and discussing the draft final report interactively, the consultants will facilitate a one-day concluding workshop for the program stakeholders.
5. Background Documents
The Consultant(s) will adopt a consultative and participative approach. This will include field visits to program sites and meetings with communities/program direct beneficiaries/government bodies at district/provincial/national level. The program sites include Multan, Jacobabad, Karachi to collect first-hand information. The MTR will start with a meeting at Rutgers Country Office and conclude with a debriefing meeting with Rutgers and other program partners.
7. Proposal Submission
Rutgers is seeking a proposal that will include following content not more than five-page:
The consultant/firm/company (registered firm will be preferred) applying for this assignment must have:
 The consultants will discuss and finalize the data collection tools and success indicators in consultation with Senior Programme Officer, PMER - Rutgers.
Annex II TOR- MTR country report template
Prevention + / Mid Term Review initial report template
This report format is developed as a guideline to assist you to write a concise mid-term review country report. The full body text of the report should be maximum 12 pages (excluding annexes).
This report is the culmination of your mid-term review, which will include several other data collection and analysis steps, as we have discussed. This report is the space to articulate your major findings and recommendations from the overall process. We welcome tables, overviews, and any other relevant outputs coming from MTR data collection to be added as annexes.
If needed, also considering the limited word space, you may refer to other reports, e.g. annual reports, but please be clear in your referencing.
Total programme (five year) budget:
Field office (if relevant):
Technical partners (if relevant):
Final Recommendations (1 page)
Please provide your top five recommendations for major program changes or adjustments for your Prevention+ country program 2019-2020. Include a short rationale for each recommendation.
These recommendations should be the final result of your entire MTR process (review of outputs, outcomes, finances, sustainability, etc.) and completed after you have finished responding to all of the guiding questions. The recommendations should encompass changes you would like to make in the remaining years of the project (mid- 2018 through 2020).
MTR Country Findings
1. Briefly describe the process and steps you undertook to conduct your mid-term review. Note any limitations in the scope of your mid-term review. (1/2 page).
2. Briefly describe what you think is the unique contribution of the Prevention+ program at country level, or what the unique contribution of the program should be by 2020. (1/2 page)
3. Assessing status of program implementation to date (3 pages)
a) Reflections on what has worked really well or better than expected (1/2 page)
b) Reflections on any major implementation changes to date, and the contextual factors for those, including any (major) discrepancies in implementation according to timeline/plan (i.e. what did you do differently than was planned; what’s lagging behind) (1/2 page)
c) Reflections on the quality of your programme implementation thus far. (1 page)
i.e. Describe the level of quality of the different activities you have implemented. Highlight activities/interventions that are of good quality (having impact) and activities/interventions where quality could be improved. Note why the activity is or is not of good quality, and how you reached that assessment. You do not need to describe every activity – highlight the highs and lows.
d) Reflections on the effectiveness of collaboration between country program partners, which may include sub-grantees or strategic partners (e.g. government institutions, other CSOs, etc.) Are these partnerships providing what you expected? (1/2 page)
e) Reflections on how well your country program is aligned to and promoting women’s rights principles and meaningful collaboration with the women’s movement and organizations (“accountability”). (1/2 page)
i.e. Describe your vision for ensuring your country program is driven-by and upholds women’s rights principles and how you have operationalized this vision a) externally (e.g. meaningful collaboration with women's organizations as strategic partners) and b) internally (e.g. how have you worked to uphold high ethical standards of all staff members, ensuring that they “practice what they preach” with regard to gender equality and a violence-free lifestyle). Highlight areas of strength and limitation.
4. Assessing effectiveness of your program strategies (2 pages)
a) Reflections on whether your approaches (intervention/activities) are leading to the intended outcomes. (1 page)
i.e. Describe the assumptions you made in selecting and designing your activities or interventions (e.g. target population; intervention; topic selection; key partners) and whether they are, or are not, working to reach the intended outcomes. Please be as specific as possible and give examples.
b) Reflections on how activities in the different result areas (individual/community/institution/government) are connected or interlinked and any added value of these connections. (1 page)
i.e. Describe why those linkages are there and how they reinforce each other (implementing according to the “socio-ecological model”). Is it working? Would stronger linkages between different activities lead to greater impact or effectiveness? What does working at all of these levels achieve?
5. Sustainability, Scale-up and Institutionalization (1-2 pages)
a) Reflections on your country program’s approach to promoting sustainability of the Prevention+ program and/or specific components of the program and success to date. By sustainability we mean: how can (elements of) your programme continue after program funding has ended.
b) Reflections on next steps to promote sustainability in 2019-2020.
c) Reflections on your country program’s vision for scale-up and/or institutionalization of Prevention+ program activities?
i.e. What strategies are you using/planning to use to be able to either expand or institutionalize specific Prevention+ activities. Explain why you have you chosen to try to institutionalize or scale-up particular parts of the program. By scale-up we mean expansion of the program/specific interventions to new intervention sites. By institutionalization we mean embedding the program/specific interventions within institutions and government structures so that they are implemented by/within these structures in future.
d) Please give examples of the (most) achievable opportunities for scale up or institutionalization of (elements) of the Prevention+ programme in 2019-2020.
6. Reflecting on Strengths, Opportunities and Risks (1 page)
a) Describe two conditions or factors that are supporting the success of the program. Please be as specific as possible [e.g. consider internal and external factors, such as capacity, available resources, partnerships, contextual or political factors]
b) Describe two conditions or factors that are undermining the success of the program. Please be as specific as possible [e.g. consider internal and external factors, such as capacity, available resources, partnerships, contextual or political factors]
c) Describe concrete needs or next steps to increase the potential for program success.
7. Finances (1/2 page)
Please include a concise narrative to present any discrepancies in spending to date (2016 through June 2018), including: underspending, overspending, delays in spending, as well as strategies for rectifying all of the above. [Note: when completing your MTR (and other reporting) it is important that you consider that your financial reporting (expenditure) is linked to or reflects your actual achievements (e.g. it does not make sense if you report a lot of funds spent on advocacy, but don’t report any advocacy activities).
8. Stories of Change (1 or 2 pages)
Consider sharing 1 to 2 stories, these can be from people who have different experiences with the Prevention+ program (e.g. participant in an intervention, or a policy-maker). When crafting a story of change, it’s important to think about the beginning, middle and end. For example, what were this person’s beliefs/attitudes/behaviours before involvement in the program, versus now, and describe the process and key levers that led to that change.)
Output achievements, outcome achievements, financial tables etc. can be available as annexes.
Proposals should clearly mark "Midterm Evaluation-P+" and must be submitted in sealed envelope via courier at Plot # 3A, Street # 7, Rabbani Market, G-10/2, Islamabad by 5 PM on 15th March 2018. All tender submissions will be evaluated on the basis of a technical and financial assessment. The following evaluation criteria and weighting will form the basis of tender research:
a) Technical : 60%
b) Financial : 20%
c) CV/Profile: 20%
Please note that online proposals will not be entertained.