1. Title
Terms of reference for the final evaluation of the project “Promoting inclusion of children with disabilities in schools, reinforcing the community structures and psychosocial accompaniment in the refugee camps of Nduta and Nyarugusu (Tanzania)”

2. Introduction
The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an international organization that, since 1980, has assumed the mission of accompanying, serving and defending the rights of refugee and displaced communities. Present in 56 countries in Europe, America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East, it implements its projects using regional structures coordinated by national offices with the support of an International Office based in Rome. JRS reopened its office in Tanzania in 2017 with the aim of responding to the increasing number of displacements of Burundian and Congolese populations.

Similar Jobs in Tanzania
Learn more about Jesuit Refugee Service
Jesuit Refugee Service jobs in Tanzania

JRS Tanzania conducted a need assessment in 2021 about the educational situation for Children with Disabilities in the refugee camps located in Kigoma. After this assessment, one project focused on inclusive education and psychosocial support to families of CWD and other vulnerable population was submitted by ALBOAN with JRS as a local implementing partner to the Basque Agency for international cooperation and development which was later approved. In addition, JRS raised other funding through its International office for activities to be implemented in favour of CWD and their families, promoting their inclusion in the education system but also in other spheres of society.

Two years after the initial assessment, as various actions have been implemented, it is considered necessary to evaluate the project.

The main objectives of this evaluation are to assess the following:
• the relevance of the procedures carried out
• the efficiency and the impact generated among the different beneficiaries
The objectives of the evaluation will aim to:
• Acquire a rigorous knowledge of successes and challenges obtained in this area to be accountable to the people with whom we have engaged, such as the beneficiaries, the government, non-government stakeholders, ALBOAN and the Basque Government.
• Obtaining learning for future interventions in inclusive education in emergency situations to guarantee the physical and emotional well-being of CWD.

3. Background and purpose of the evaluation
By evaluating this project, JRS aims to promote Inclusive education, psychosocial support and accompaniment for CWD and other vulnerable populations, as well as reinforcing JRS capacities. This shall be done through 4 main axes, as follows: 1) Improving access and quality of education for learners with disabilities in the camps.; 2) Enhancing refugees' skills to defend their rights and peaceful coexistence; 3) Improving psychosocial well-being of the most vulnerable refugees; 4) Improving local partner's technical and advocacy skills.

The implementation period began on January 1st, 2022 and will be almost entirely implemented by March 31st, 2023 when the project ends.
1. Target group holder of the rights
This intervention, carried out in the two refugee camps located in Kigoma Region, Nduta and Nyarugusu, essentially targets the following rights holders:
1. Children with disabilities in and out of school: through the assessment it was identified that there was a total of 2,615 CWDs in Mtendeli, Nduta, and Nyarugusu refugee camps; of there were 1198 female children and 1417 male children with disabilities. 82% of CWD were found to be out of school;through different activities in the project, JRS sought to benefit all of them through diverse activities.
2. Teaching staff: Teacher training has been a strong component of the project, whereby a total number of more than 450 teachers have been trained in different ways of teaching in inclusive education.
3. Members of the committee, fathers and mothers of students, Government Officials, community leaders and other community stakeholders: Sensitization of the community has been another key point of the project, whereby meetings and workshops with different stakeholders like PTA’s, community and religious leaders, Government officials have been carried out.
4. Caregivers of CWD: Taking into account the great number of challenges these families have to overcome, a focus has been put in training man families about basic care for CWD.
5. Youth: As a way of promoting the rights of refugees, training of youth has been a key part of the project, so they shall be included in the evaluation of the project. They have benefited as well from other activities such as sport competitions.
6. Vulnerable people from various categories: Mainly through axe 3, a project aimed at offering different MHPSS services to most vulnerable groups such as elders, people suffering from different diseases or witchcraft, vulnerable categories of people have been discovered
7. JRS staff: Increasing the capacities of the local organisation, JRS, remains a high priority. This includes JRS staff as well as JRS incentive workers that act as focal points in the camp mainly through axe 4.
2. Intervention budget
The budget used for the realization of the project is explained in the table below:
Total project costs
(A) Direct costs (EUR)
(B) Indirect costs (EUR)
Total costs
(EUR)
Contributions Basque Government/ALBOAN
184,000
16,000
200,000
Local partner contributions
165,000
165,000
Target collective contributions
Local public contributions
Other local private contributions
Total project funding
349,000
16,000
365,000

3. Actors concerned
For JRS and ALBOAN, it is particularly important to carry out an external evaluation that is as participatory as possible, that it listens to all possible voices, that allows them to participate freely in the evaluation space, in order to achieve two main goals: 1) to have key information from key stakeholders and 2) that those involved know and take ownership of the evaluation process so that they can ultimately implement the findings and recommendations in project management and design of these.

1. Main actors to be involved in the evaluation.
Special attention is placed in the people to whom this evaluation is targeted and who we must involve to a large extent in the information gathering techniques of the evaluation. In general, the main actors identified that we hope to involve are:
o Children with disabilities
 Children without disabilities that indirectly benefit from the project
 Teaching staff - Members of the parents’ committee (PTA’s)
 Community leaders - Members of MoHA, Refugee department
 The staff of UNHCR, as responsible of coordinating matters related to refugees
 Caregivers of CWD - General and vulnerable youth from the camp
 Vulnerable groups benefiting from the MHPSS program?
 JRS staff

2. Evaluation management unit
JRS will constitute the management unit of the evaluation, in close collaboration with MOHA Refugees service department and UNHCR. Likewise, JRS will be responsible for the management of those aspects that are necessary in the field of work and in the field, as well as the delivery of all those data and information that may be required, to facilitate the logistics necessary for the visits and trips of the team carrying out the evaluation and to support the implementation of information techniques. ALBOAN and JRS International Office as intermediates with the donors will be informed about the different phases of the project.

3. The monitoring Committee
The monitoring committee will be responsible for monitoring the evaluation work to ensure that it is carried out according to quality criteria and to validate the different stages of the process. Their tasks will mostly be:
• Identification of information needs
• Methodological design and subsequent implementation of information techniques
• Interpretation of results and feasibility of recommendations
The Monitoring Committee will be composed of a few actors responsible for different tasks:
• JRS, participating in and overseeing all stages of the assessment, including identifying information needs and developing findings and recommendations
• ALBOAN focal point for its projects in AFRICA
• Representatives of the collectives concerned (target collectives, local authorities and any other actor deemed relevant), will have to participate at all times since they are those who have full knowledge of the facts about this intervention, in particular in the drafting part of conclusions and recommendations

4. Scope of the assessment
Through this evaluation we continue, on the one hand, to analyse the relevance of the processes carried out., The assesment seeks to determine the effectiveness of the project and the impact generated. On the other hand, it’s an opportunity to analyse the existing gaps to inform future projects. These objectives arise from the collection of a series of evaluation questions posed by those directly involved in the management of the project.

1. Evaluation issues
Below, the results expected from the project can be found, which are the base to evaluate them.
1. Improving access and quality of education for learners with disabilities in the camps.
2. Enhancing refugees' skills to defend their rights and peaceful coexistence.
3. Improving psychosocial well-being of the most vulnerable refugees.
4. Improving local partner's technical and advocacy skills.

For every result, the person/group in charge of evaluation must refer to two aspects already named in the introduction; 1) Obtaining learning for future interventions in inclusive education in emergency situations and on the physical, pedagogical, and family conditions that must compete to guarantee the physical and emotional well-being of CWD.; 2) Acquire a rigorous knowledge of the successes and challenges obtained in this area to be accountable to the people with whom we have engaged, such as the beneficiaries, main government, and non-government stakeholders and ALBOAN and the Basque Government.

However, it shall be noted that not all the results have the same importance in terms of budget but also of impact expected for the population. This shall also be considered, for example, in involving more resources to assess result number 1 rather than result number 4, as the budget figures and target for both results are very different. The logical framework will help the evaluator person or group to see the relevance of each result.

2. Evaluation questions
In this section, some questions may be found to orient in the evaluation process. These questions have been designed by results and according to the nature and activities of the project. For those interested in sending a proposal, further information will be given in section 12 on who and how to ask for the whole log frame of the project in order to have a solid evaluation proposal.

Results of the project
Orientation questions
Improving access and quality of education for learners with disabilities in the camps.
Are the equipment and materials distributed through the project to schools being used? Have they had an impact in the teaching-learning process?
Have the assistive devices had an impact in the life of the beneficiaries and their families?
Are the teachers using the knowledge they acquired through the teacher training? Which Knowledge?
Are teachers more capacitated to integrate children with disabilities in specialised or mainstream classrooms?

Has the project had an impact in the enrolment, retention, attendance and completion of CWD in schools?

Enhancing refugees' skills to defend their rights and peaceful coexistence.
Is the community in it’s different layers more aware of the rights of Children with Disabilities?
Have the caregivers increased their resilience to raise their children according to their needs and rights? Have the CWD themselves seen an amelioration in their care by their parents?

Do the youth trained still present an increased knowledge in peaceful coexistence and in management of social and personal problems? Are the contributing to raising awareness in the community about these issues?

Have the different social events (film projection, sports tournament…) had an impact in the social cohesion at the camp level?
Improving psychosocial well-being of the most vulnerable refugees.
Are the JRS incentive workers capacitated to comply with JRS code of conduct? Do they have enough knowledge in PSS to conduct their duties?
Do people benefited from home visit experience any relief or amelioration in the well-being?
To what extent people benefiting from group listening or referrals experience an amelioration in their well-being?
Improving local partner's technical and advocacy skills.
Are JRS staff more capacitated to carry out their duties and to monitor and evaluate the impact of the program?

Is JRS having an active presence in the main working groups, such as Education Working Group?
Is the relationship between JRS and MoHA Refugee Services department conducive for a good implementation of projects?

5. Evaluation methodology
JRS requires an evaluation that allows a systematic analysis which takes into consideration the following criteria:
• Relevance: how the project objectives are based on real problems (of the beneficiaries, of the territory, of the organizations operating in that sector, etc.) and effectively address them.
• Internal coherence, i.e. the extent to which the project is constructed logically: activities lead to results, results to the specific objective and the specific objective to the general objective, through an analysis of the result chain
• Sustainability, i.e. the extent to which the improvement in the situation of beneficiaries can be considered lasting.
• Quality: whether activities implemented respected quality criteria such as good quality of materials, specialized trainers, effective monitoring systems…
Based on the notion of organizational principles, JRS requires a methodological rigor. In addition, it encourages the culture of evaluation among the main agents involved in the project. In this context, we will value:
1. Ensure the application of techniques considering the validity and reliability characteristic of social research.
2. Establish in methodological focus capable of validating the four levels of evaluative analysis: i) findings; ii) interpretative analysis based on these data, facts and interpretations; iii) conclusive judgments (findings); and iv) recommendations.
It is essential to include gender and disability analysis and design the methodology to consider this aspect in the collection of information and the drawing of conclusions.

6. Workplan
The evaluation should consist of four phases:
1. Office phase. At this stage the evaluation team should:
• Adjust and define the evaluation program so that it´s appropriate and feasible.
1. Knowing the purpose of the evaluation and the evaluative context in which it operates, as well as detecting key informants.
2. Operationalize the main questions through indicators and propose suitable techniques for data collection.
The final design of the evaluation (with the evaluation matrix and proposed methodological options), as well as the timetable for the fieldwork, will have to be approved by JRS.
1. Work on the field. Implementation of techniques foreseen in the design of the evaluation through field work. It will be necessary to visit both camps and do a rigorous data collection.
2. Preparation of the evaluation report. It is a question of analysing and interpreting the data, then of elaborating the report. This includes the phase of presentation to all members of the Monitoring Committee of the draft final report as well as the sharing of findings and recommendations.
3. Dissemination and socialization of evaluation findings. This final step includes feedback of the evaluation results to JRS.

The planned schedule is as follows:
Phase
2nd half August
1st half September
2nd half September
1st half of October
The cabinet study and
development of the evaluation design.
Field work
Drafting of the report evaluation
Presentation of the draft to JRS
Review of conclusions and recommendations
Delivery of the final evaluation report Socialization of results
7. Expected results and structure of the report
All products resulting from this evaluation process must be presented in English.
As results JRS is expecting the following per each phase:
After the design phase, a final evaluation program that will need to be approved by JRS will be requested that contains the following points:
1. Definition of the object of the evaluation: main structural elements of the intervention, the most significant processes and outstanding results attributed.
2. Evaluation matrix: criteria/information needs, evaluation questions, indicators, techniques and methodological foundations to be applied during subsequent evaluation.
3. Suggestion of work in the field where the implementation of the planned techniques and the meetings for the return of the preliminary discoveries are programmed.
The output for the implementation phase will be a draft of the final evaluation report and videographic material (photographs, videos, etc.) that visualize, complete and/or accompany the evaluation work carried out and the content of the evaluation report. After including the comments from JRS and the monitoring committee, a final evaluation report will have to be submitted containing the following structure of contents (the points can be modified or adapted after consensus between evaluator and JRS):
1. Executive summary
2. Introduction
3. Summary of the description of the evaluated intervention
4. Methodology used in the evaluation of the project
1. Methodology and techniques used
2. Conditions and limits of the study carried out
5. Analysis and interpretation of data collected by results
6. Findings of the evaluation according to process
7. Brief analysis of the evaluation criteria
8. Lessons learned
9. Recommendations resulting from the evaluation.
10. Annexes of which we will include:
11. Terms of reference
12. Workplan.
13. Proposed methodology, techniques and sources from which data were collected, documentary review, interviews, list of informants, interview scripts, transcripts and notes (if warranted), survey models, raw data collected, statistical analysis, and other information that we may collect and analyze.
14. Allegations and comments from various actors in the draft of the report if relevant.
15. 2-page summary sheet
In any case, its points and other products will materialize according to the design and scope of the evaluation agreed in the first phase and will be agreed between JRS and the person doing the evaluation.
The output for the subsequent phase of socialization and dissemination of the findings of the evaluation are as follows:
• Feedback of evaluation findings and review of the evaluation process to JRS, International Office Education Unit and ALBOAN staff.
• Presentation of videographic material (photographs, videos, etc.) that visualizes, completes and/or accompanies the evaluation work carried out and the content of the evaluation report produced with the agreement of the project stakeholders.

8. Documents and data sources.
The person or group in charge of the evaluation shall be in charge of doing a secondary data review about the topic, including the most significant documents and findings related to the topic. If needed, he will be able to request JRS to provide some of this information, but he will not be limited by this information provided by JRS.

9. The evaluation team
To carry out this evaluation, JRS needs an individual or group of individuals from Tanzania that meet the following requirements:
• Knowledge and experience in international cooperation and areas of expertise of the project (inclusive education and MHPSS).
• Proven experience in evaluating projects and programs.
• Knowledge and experience in methodology and social research (mastery in designing evaluations or in research and development of quantitative and qualitative techniques proved by previous works).
• Training and proven experience in gender equality as well as in the implementation of the gender perspective in evaluations.
• Be available for the entire period of the evaluation, in particular for fieldwork, work meetings and for the dissemination and feedback of the findings obtained.

In the case where the proposal is done by an individual, he will be the focal point in communicating with JRS. In case it’s a team, details should be given about the responsibilities and positions of each member, as well as having a coordinator who will act as liaison with JRS and who will be responsible for the final report.

10. Premises of the evaluation
This point is supposed to establish certain professional and ethical requirements that the evaluation team will have to respect, for example:
• Anonymity and confidentiality: evaluation must respect the right of individuals to provide anonymous and confidential information.
• Responsibility: any disagreement or difference of opinion that may occur between the members of the team or between them and those responsible for the intervention, regarding findings and recommendations must be mentioned in the report. Any allegation must be shared by the team, otherwise the disagreement must be recorded.
• Integrity: the evaluation team will be responsible for highlighting those issues that have not been specifically mentioned in this call, if necessary in order to obtain a more detailed analysis on the intervention.
• Independence: the evaluation team must guarantee its independence from the evaluated intervention by not being linked to the management or to any other element that composes it.
• Incidents: if problems arise during the fieldwork or in any other phase of the evaluation, these must be communicated to JRS. Otherwise, under no circumstances could these problems be used as a justification for not obtaining the results established by JRS in this call.
• Data recognition: the evaluation team will be responsible for ensuring the veracity of the data collected for the preparation of the reports, and ultimately will be responsible for the information presented in the final report.
• Sanctions regime: in the event of delays in the delivery of the reports or if the quality of the reports is manifestly inferior to what had been agreed with JRS, the evaluation team will submit to the arbitration decision and, if necessary, at a discount in the payment of the service.
• Copyright and dissemination: Emphasis is placed on the fact that all copyright belongs to the body contracting the evaluation (JRS). Dissemination of the data collected and of the final report is only the responsibility of the agency implementing the grant and contracting the evaluation, JRS.

11. Evaluation budget
The budget available for the evaluation is 7,500,000 TZS (Seven and a half million Tanzanian Shillings only). This budget includes taxes and all costs associated with field work, such as transport to Kigoma Region, accommodation, translations and any other costs generated by the evaluation.
Payment for services will be made in three instalments, as follows:
• The first will be 30% of the budget upon signature of the contract with the evaluation team.
• The second, for an additional 30% of the budget upon submission of the preliminary evaluation report, the draft evaluation report.
• The third, 40% of the total upon submission of the final evaluation report

12. Presentation of the technical and economic proposal.
The presentation of the offer must be made by e-mail. The content of the offer must address at least the following points:
1. Methodological design in the form of a project hypothesis and explaining how different groups will be included in the evaluation.
2. Pre-assessment matrix containing the indicated assessment questions/topics, indicators that operationalize its questions and data collection techniques. We appreciate the presentation of the questions and techniques of data collection as well as the inclusion of a gender perspective.
3. Proposed schedule and tasks
4. Budget classified by evaluation phases
5. Curriculum vitae of the evaluator with details of what is requested in point number 9.

How to apply
The deadline for presenting the offer ends on August 29th 2023. It should be submitted by e-mail to the following e-mail addresses: General address of JRS BDI-TZ: bdi-tz.hr@jrs.net Amani Kagoma (project Director of JRS Tanzania): amani.kagoma@jrs.net; and Ousmane N'Gaide (Country Director of JRS Tanzania) ousmane.ngaide@jrs.net
As a rule, any additional information can be requested from these e-mail addresses.