This page needs JavaScript activated to work.

Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Evaluation

Average: 3 (14 votes)

CBM is an international Christian development organization committed to improving the quality of life of persons with disabilities in developing countries of the world

Terms of Reference for Evaluation

Contents 1

Evaluation Summary. 2

  1. Background of Project 3
  2. Evaluation Objective, Scope, and Intended Use. 6

2.1.     Scope of the evaluation. 6

2.2.     Target audience and intended use. 7

  1. Evaluation Questions. 8
  2. Methodology. 11
  3. Limitations. 12
  4. Evaluation Team and Management Responsibilities. 12

6.1.     Commissioning responsibility. 12

6.2.     Evaluation Team.. 12

6.3.     Management of the evaluation and logistics. 13

  1. Expected Results. 13
  2. Costs and payments. 15
  3. Application. 15
  4. Attachments. 16

Appendix: Stakeholder Analysis for Evaluation. 16

Evaluation Summary


Project Number

P3995-MYP: Enhancing access to quality education, inclusion, and community well-being for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Kicukiro, City of Kigali

Partner Organisation

Home de la Vierge des Pauvres (HVP)Gatagara

Project start and end dates,

Phase of project

3 February 2020 – 2 February 2023

Evaluation Purpose

  • The main objective of the mid term review is to guide project management and stakeholders identify and understand successes to date and challenges that need to be addressed by providing stakeholders with an external, objective view on the project status.
  • Establish the level of the performance in relation to the project implementation in 10 sectors of Kicukiro  district in City of Kigali for evidence based decision making and management
  •  To assess the mid-term project achievement for accountability purposes to stakeholders
  •  For organizational learning for all stakeholders to guide improvement on implementation in the remaining project period
  • Draw lessons and make recommendations for learning to enhance project implementation and performance

The Mid-term Evaluation will also focus on the following elements regarding the project:

  • Sustainability
  • Relevance
  • Effectiveness and Efficiency
  •  Impact
  • Gender
  •   Child Safeguarding
  •   Disability Inclusion
  • Environment

Evaluation Type

(e.g. midterm, end of phase)

Midterm evaluation

Commissioning organisation/contact person

CBM Country Office, Rwanda 

Evaluation Team members (if known)

External consultant-Review Team 

Primary Methodology

Mixed Methods, including quantitative and qualitative methods, physical on-site, and virtual methods

Proposed Evaluation Start and End Dates

5th October - 25th October 2021

Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date

30th October 2021

Recipient of Final Evaluation Report

CBM (CO, RH, IO, MA), EU Delegation to Rwanda, HVP Gatagara

1.Background of Project

CBM has been in partnership with  HVP Gatagara  since 2019. HVP Gatagara is an institution working in favour of Persons with Disabilities in Rwanda that was established in 1962 by Father Joseph Fraipont NDAGIJIMANA. HVP Gatagara is seeking to Radiate God's love to People with Disability through healthcare and special education and Working with a mission of a High quality and sustainable education, orthopaedic and rehabilitation services to all persons with disabilities in partnership with other stakeholders.

CBM and HVP Gatagara partnership was established and formalized through an Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Promoting the education of children with disabilities through a project entitled “Enhancing access to quality education, inclusion and community well-being for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Kicukiro, City of Kigali”.

The overall objective of the project “Enhancing access to quality education, inclusion and community well-being for children with intellectual disabilities and their families in Kicukiro, City of Kigali ” is to contribute to the realization of human rights (civil, political-economic, social, and cultural rights) of persons with intellectual disabilities in Rwanda.

Specific Objectives of the project include:

  • Objective 1: Community members, service providers, and local leaders sensitized on disability rights and inclusion
  • Objective 2: Children and youth (5-18 years.) with intellectual disabilities benefited from education without discrimination and necessary/ appropriate support directed to reaching their full potential..
  • Objective 3: Families empowered in basic skills on disability management, specifically regarding children with intellectual disabilities
  • Objective 4: Parents of children with intellectual disabilities and children with intellectual disabilities benefited from psychosocial support.
  • Objective 5: Human rights Instruments promoted and monitored by Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) and Human Right Organisations (HROs).

In order to achieve those objectives, the project`s action plan considers the following interventions:

Objective 1: Community members, service providers, and local leaders sensitized on disability rights and inclusion.

A1.1: Development of simple read version (booklet & hand out) on disability right for people (beneficiaries) to understand right of people with intellectual Disabilities:

A1.2: Raise awareness of approx. 318,500 community members on disability rights through the National Council of People with Disabilities (NCPD)  and Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) committee at district and sector level.

A1.3: Sensitize 21 Local leaders

A1.4: Training for 130 families on disability rights and inclusion:

A1.5: Raise awareness of medical & rehabilitation staff (service providers) & local authorities:

A1.6: Creation of anti-discrimination Inclusive Education Club in 10 ordinary schools

A1.7: Training of CHW on intellectual disability and the use of tools

A1.8: Training of 20 teachers from neighbouring inclusive schools

Objective 2: Children and youth (5-18 years.) with intellectual disabilities benefited from education without discrimination and necessary/ appropriate support directed to reaching their full potential.

A2.1: Medical and educational assessment of 130 children (aged 5-18) with intellectual disabilities

A2.2: Proper educational placement and orientation of 130 children

A2.3: Provision of rehabilitation services and early stimulation

A2.4: Training of 25 teachers, 11 administrative staff, 21 medical and rehabilitation staff

A2.5: Provision of teaching/ learning materials

A2.6: Follow up of 130 children with intellectual disabilities by community health workers.

A2.7: Identification of approx. 50 new children

A2.8: Referral of Children with severe problems

A2.9: Training of 20 teachers from inclusive schools

Objective 3: Families empowered in basic skills on disability management, specifically regarding children with intellectual disabilities

A3.1: Awareness raising and training of at least 130 parents, caretakers, and household members

A3.2: Peer learning among parents of children with intellectual disabilities

A3.3: Family home visits by community health workers

A3.4 Formation of self-help groups in each sector

Objective 4: Parents of children with intellectual disabilities and children with intellectual disabilities benefited from psychosocial support.

A4.1: Counselling sessions for 130-180 parents of children with intellectual disabilities

A4.2: Establish and support 10 parent’s self-help groups of 200 members

A4.3: Training of parents of children with intellectual disabilities on positive parenting, conflict solving, child sexual development, HIV and Aids, etc.

A4.4: Counselling sessions for 50 children with intellectual Disabilities 

Objective 5: Human rights Instruments promoted and monitored by Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) and Human Right Organisations (HROs).

A5.1: Training of 26 DPOs members (2 per DPO) and 6 HROs on Human rights monitoring, reporting, 2030 Agenda, and relevant political processes.

A5.2: Three (3) Radio and 3 TV talk shows on human rights and rights of persons with disabilities

A5.3: Bi-annual stakeholders meeting (including local authorities) to monitor the progress in the implementation of UNCRPD and other human rights instruments within the country.

A5.4: Establishment/ Creation of 1 platform of DPOs (disabled people’s organisations), parents with intellectual disabilities, teachers, local authorities, and children with intellectual disabilities on Human Right and intellectual Disabilities at District and sector level.

A5.5: Networking Pan-African of people with psychosocial disabilities and Rwandan DPOs

2.Evaluation Objective, Scope, and Intended Use

The Mid-term evaluation is intended to provide evidence on the  progress of the project (programme) at mid-term with a specific focus on what worked and what didn’t in order to allow for maximisation of impact.

2.1. Scope of the evaluation

The objective of this mid-term review is to reflect on the process of developing the project, examine how far the project is progressing towards its overall and specific objectives, understand problems that need to be addressed, and what lessons can be drawn for the project part duration.

It is also intended to be used primarily by HVP Gatagara, CBM, and EU to inform necessary and/or desirable adjustments and improvements to the project and its implementation.

The evaluator will be required to evaluate the following:

  • Results achievement to measure if the project is making satisfactory progress in the timely achievement of outputs as per logframe and related delivery of inputs.
  • Evaluate other critical issues relating to results achievement and the factors affecting successful implementation of the project.
  • The strategic positioning and partnerships.
  • Sustainability of results and exit strategy.
  • Document the learnings emerging so far from the project implementation
  1. The Mid-Term Evaluation is expected to cover the following project components: Partner project Management: implementation and collaboration with other stakeholders at the national and local level.
  2. CBM Counry Office: responsible for the action implementation, project monitoring, financial and narrative reporting mechanism, capacity building to the partner and the linkage to international strategies, communication with the donor.
  • NUDOR, DPOs members and Tubakunde involvement : how the umbrella of DPO advocates for people with disability rights, Human rights promotion, advocates for mainstreaming agenda in both government and civil society.  The mid-term evaluation will also evaluate how Collectif Tubakunde plays the role of advocacy, sharing best practices, learning exchanges and synergies in disability area in the project.
  • Troupe des Hndicapees Twuzuzanye (THT): crucial roles in organising training of inclusive education club
  • Rwanda Education Board (REB): Training of teachers on special and inclusive education: Provide support for training of teachers
  • Medical, Rehabilitation & educational services: Responsible for referral structure, provision of medical and rehabilitation services to children
  • NCPD: Technical expertise for providing training on disability, disability right, and inclusion, Collaboration with NCPD leaders
  • CBID Committee : Coordination of the implementation of CBID programme and Community mobilization

The Mid-term Evaluation has the following principal tasks:

  • Assess the project design in terms of its relevance to the overall development situation at the national level; relevance to national strategies, relevance to HVP GATAGARA mandate and relevance to beneficiaries;
  • Assess the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the project interventions;
  • Assess the socio-inclusion situation impact on improving the socio-economic participation of persons with disabilities in the community;
  • Assess the relevance and effectiveness of the project’s strategies and approaches for achievement of the project objectives;
  • Assess the performance of the project in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of producing the expected outputs;
  • Assess the quality and timeliness of inputs, the reporting and monitoring system, and the extent to which these have been effective;
  • Assess the relevance of the project’s management arrangements, identify strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learnt with regards to the project, analyse underlying factors beyond CBM control that affected the achievement of the project’s results;
  • Provide recommendations to key project partners and stakeholders for the next period of the project.

2.2. Target audience and intended use

The evaluation shall provide a detailed account of the achievements and challenges of the project for the partner organisation, for CBM Country Office and

other stakeholders.

The final report shall be used as a demonstration of accountability to the donor, EU Delegation to Rwanda, and all project stakeholders. An Executive Summary and graphical depictions of findings together with useful recommendations shall allow stakeholders to use it for adjustment and learning. Moreover, it shall be used by partners as a feedback to the target group and how well intended results and positive (or negative) results have been achieved. A specific format such as a slide presentation or poster in accessible format shall be used.

The review team should conduct the process in a participatory manner as much as possible and enable all stakeholders, including CBM CO staff, to reflect on their role in the design and implementation of the project itself. Their perspectives on the process and results, identifying strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures, enabling and inhibiting factors as well as challenges should be sought and incorporated.

The above audience will also be including HVP GATAGARA board member’s representative and individual key people with disabilities that were involved in the project implementation in supporting the organisation in awareness-raising campaigns, technical support in the development of training modules and implementation of training measures, and participation in project-related meetings in a supportive capacity.

3.Evaluation Questions

The following questions will lead to the objective by detailing project specific areas of enquiry around the key evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. There are also other areas of enquiry on which you want to focus such as: Gender, Child Safeguarding, disability inclusion, and environment.

3.1. Relevance/Appropriateness and quality of design:

  • To what extent was and still is the project approach relevant in the country context?
  • Is the project based on a clear and focused rationale for the interventions?
  • How far was the project based on a realistic analysis of the country situation?How far were strategic approaches of the project aligned with development needs and policy priorities in the country?
  • How systematically did HVP GATAGARA and CBM assess the external risks and internal threats to its programme and interventions?
  • How HVP GATAGARA project team describe their respective experience in the project– a time they were engaged? What are the most project team value in the project?
  • What three wishes do you have to enhance the health and vitality of similar future projects?
    • To what degree is the project still relevant – has anything in the context changed and how should the office respond?
    • How the project’s potentiality contributing to the promotion of the rights of people with disabilities?
    • To what extent were strategic approaches of the project in line with HVP Gatagara, CBM, and EU mission?
    • Are the logframe indicators useful in demonstrating results and effectiveness? How has the project been monitored?
    • How is learning being captured and shared? 
    • Does any focal area need particular added attention or should be reconsidered entirely?

3.2. Effectiveness and Efficiency or cost-effectiveness (of planning and of implementation):  

  • How successfulis the project in terms of engagement and delivering results?
  • How far have the objectives and related indicators for individual Project interventions been achieved (drawing on data from project reviews and evaluations)? This shall be assessed by looking at existing reports (PPR, project visits, narrative reports, statistics, activity reports...)
  • How effective has the project been in working with the government at the local and national level? To what extent has the project team and stakeholders been able to influence government policy and practice over the evaluation period? To what extent has the project been able to work with, and influence, other donors, and which approaches have been most effective? How well has HVP GATAGARA communicated its results/lessons/emerging practices?
  • How effective has the project been in aligning to government policies and systems? To what degree has HVP GATAGARA been able to influence government systems to be more inclusive of disability?
  • How was capacity development (at partner level) resourced? To what extent has local capacity been built and what are the results?
  • How did the relationships between HVP GATAGARA and CBM Country Office help improve efficiency?
  • With what stakeholders did the project co-operate successfully, which are less involved?
  • What are the core factors that gave life to the this project, without which the project would cease to exist?
  • What and How has the capacities of HVP GATAGARA been strengthened by CBM? What and how the capacities of DPOs and other stakeholders involved in the project have been strengthened by HVP Gatagara ?
  • How he has increased their own effectiveness and efficiency?
  • How efficient is the project, (economic impact analysis?)
  • What are the Social Return on Investment from the project?

3.3. Impact - Contribution to change and Sustainability:

This assesses the positive and negative consequences of the project activities, direct and indirect, intended and unintended.

  • What is the evidence to show that HVP GATAGARA is building capacity to contribute to specific development? Has the project added value to country development?
  • How much has the project been able to influence through mainstreaming and other national advocacy?
  • What are the key strengths and weaknesses demonstrated by the project?
  • What are the lessons learnt from this project (from positive and negative findings) that can be drawn for HVP GATAGARA and CBM CO?
  • What are long-term and unexpected consequences for the project target group (qualitative and quantitative)?
  • How sustainable is the project, what will most likely continue after the project ends?
  • How resources were managed and allocated to ensure project sustainability?
  • What are structural change which has been achieved through the project’s impact?
  • Gender
  • Has there been any change in the participation of women and men in the community, social, economic, or political/decision-making life within the target area? What is the link between the work of the project and these changes?
  • Has there been any change over the project period to women and men with disabilities participating in community decision-making processes? Any change in the power distribution?
  • What is the ratio of women and men in the project? Does this adequately reflect the ratio of males and females with disability in the target region?
  • Are female and male adults/children having equal access to project activities?
  • Did both men and women receive the appropriate and needed support so that their needs are addressed?
  • Is the focus on women caregivers appropriate? Does the project reinforce unequal duties such as taking care of children with disabilities? How are men included in the project?
  • Is the focus on volunteers e.g. in CBR projects creating power differences between men and women or does it enhance power for one of the groups?
  • Is there a difference in activities/training in terms of gender equality?

3.5. Child Safeguarding

  • How has a safe environment for children been established and maintained throughout the stages of planning and implementation?
  • Assess the awareness of involved stakeholders about the rights of children and about child protection/safeguarding and what prevention and protection activities were undertaken.
  • What measures have been put into place to ensure the partner organization and any other actors involved respect the safeguarding principles? What kind of control mechanism is in place? Assess the degree to which the CBM child safeguarding standards are known and understood by the various stakeholders.
  • Assess how stakeholders (partner organizations, community groups, etc.) will keep a safe environment for children and how they will keep prevention and protection measures.
  • Assess whether there have been any project activities that have created unforeseen negative impacts on children’s safety.
  • What feedback mechanisms are in place to report the violation of child safeguarding?
  • How the project considers and adhere to HVP GATAGARA child safeguarding policies?

3.6. Disability Inclusion

  • Has the awareness and understanding of disability increased amongst project staffand community? What can be learned about the initiatives undertaken? Were some more successful than others?
  • Did women and men with a disability equally gain a better understanding of their rights and entitlements?
  • Were women, men, girls, and boys with a disability equally able to access the full range of services offered? What difficulties did each of those groups have in accessing the services? What are recommendations for addressing the barriers in the future?
  • Have project personnel received knowledge and training on the specific needs of women, girls, men, and boys with a disability?
  • Has the community formed a deeper respect and understanding for people with a disability and their families including decreased stigma and discrimination and increased appreciation of capacities and contribution?
  • Have organisational policies, procedures, and project decisions been reviewed and updated to be disability inclusive?

3.7. Environment 

  • In terms of ecology, how was conducted the project environmental impact assessment? If not, explain why?
  • How is the climate change affecting the project beneficiaries' living conditions?


This evaluation will be carried out using mixed methods to review documents and conduct interviews with key project staff, CBM CO staff, other stakeholders, and beneficiaries involved in the project planning and implementation. The review will collect quantitative and qualitative data from baseline information and monitoring systems including statistics, narrative reports, financial reports, and other relevant documentation.

The evaluator will take into consideration the implementation status of the programme and the resource disbursements made from 3 February 2020 to 2 August 2021.

The methodology and in-depth timeline of the review process will be drafted by CBM CO in consultation with the partner. This will then be reviewed by CBM East and South Africa Regional Hub and Advisor from CBMI and finalised by the CO. The EU Delegation to Rwanda will also approve the TORs before they are circulated.

The mid-term review will take place in Rwanda at national and local level in Kicukiro districts, with an inception meeting and, visits to the partner and selected relevant audience.

The consultation with more stakeholders with similar questions to the target audience should be carried out. More in-depth structured interviews and/or focus groups with key stakeholders including virtual sessions from a few strategic target groups should also be undertaken.

The process will involve the preparation of background documents considered essential to answer the key questions above. The final list of documents should be submitted to the review team at least two weeks prior to the review itself.

The report should contain high-quality pictures, well captioned and supported by beneficiaries’ individual consent forms.

5.  Limitations

The following limitations are identified:

  • Accessibility: According to the target groups and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it is envisaged that the team can organize virtual and online interview, focus group discussions facilitated by sign language interpreters and an on-site physical visit component will included
  • The number of visits/interviews: The team will take time for the review itself, visit all targeted groups or interview all concerned institutions as well. Efforts will be made to ensure that institutions and stakeholders visited include officials and that stakeholders interviewed are as official representative as possible.

6.  Timeframe: The timeframe of the review is planned in October 2021. Evaluation Team and Management Responsibilities

6.1.  Commissioning responsibility

The evaluation will be under the responsibility of the CBM Rwanda Country Office. However, as CBM Germany holds the contract with the EU, respective approaches in terms of methodology, final report, etc. will be aligned with for their input and alignment.

The local implementing partner HVP GATAGARA will be involved in drafting the Terms of Reference, reviewing and providing their input to the final report in close communication with CBM in form of a Management Response. EU Delegation to Rwanda will also give their input to the TOR and review the final report.

6.2.Evaluation Team

A team of individual consultants consisting of participants from a variety of experience in evaluating complex projects is required.

It is strongly-desired that a suitably qualified review team member or consultant with a disability, ideally from Rwandan DPO with experience of the national inclusive education context and development context, community development perspectives, is a member of the review team.

To maintain objectivity, no member of the partner board of directors and partner staff should be part of the review team, although of course coordinating closely with the team itself. However, in order to maximise learning, there should be sufficient time for debrief and discussion between team members, the partner, and the CBM country office.

The CBM CO and the project manager at HVP GATAGARA will accompany where possible and inform the review team, inform and clarify issues, but at the same time ensure the team has enough space to interview partners, key staff, key stakeholders on their own, discuss among themselves and develop their findings independently.

Child and Adults at Risk Safeguarding Policy and CBI anti corruption policy is a condition of entering into a consultancy agreement. Therefore, the evaluators must sign the CBM Child Safeguarding Policy and abide by the terms and conditions thereof.

6.3. Management of the evaluation and logistics

HVP GATAGARA will arrange meetings and local logistics in close alignment with the Evaluation Team. The partner must make sure that venues are accessible for persons with disabilities.

The consultant shall ensure that appropriate translation or interpretation is covered as needed. This also includes potential provision of sign language interpretation. Again, CBM or the partner organisation can support to locate suitable services as needed.

The CBM Country Office will facilitate the contact between the Evaluation Team and the local partner. It has the responsibility to make sure that relevant CBM stakeholders are aligned and available for discussions as well as provide their feedback to the draft evaluation report. Furthermore, the evaluation will be kicked-off with a brief meeting between the partner organisation, the CBM CO to the Evaluation Team. A final wrap-up meeting shall be conducted by the same parties.

CBM Regional Hub will make sure to be available for a briefing discussion as well as will provide feedback to the draft evaluation report. CBM Germany will make sure to share the evaluation report with the EU for their information and further follow-up.

7.Expected Results

The Review Team leader is expected to submit a report complemented with attachments as necessary. The report should be written in English. After receiving the comments, the Team leader will finalize the report and submit to CBM. The final version of the report will be shared with CBM IO and RH, EU Delegation to Rwanda, and partners as deemed necessary by CO management.

The following expected result documents will be developed as a result of the process:

Inception Report (due by:10/10/2021) – The Inception report will include the proposed methodologies, data collection, and reporting plans with draft data collection tools such as interview guides, a timeframe with firm dates for deliverables,bio of evaluation team and team leader,  evaluation work schedule and the travel and logistical arrangements for the team.

First Draft Report (due by: 25/10/2021) – A draft report, consolidating findings from the review, identifying key findings, conclusions, recommendations, and lessons learnt for the current and future similar projects, will be submitted to CBM CO.

Final Report (due by: 30/10/2021) – The final report will contain a short executive summary (no more than 3 pages) and a main body of the report. The main body of the report covers the background of the intervention reviewed, a description of the review methods and limitations, findings (to be presented by review criteria), conclusions, lessons learned, and clear recommendations.

Recommendations should also outline recommendations that the project staff and the reviewers have in common or different views based on the feedback sessions to discuss the findings.  The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the ToR, cited resources or bibliography, a list of those interviewed, and any other relevant materials (e.g., tools).  The final report will be submitted in 2 weeks after receipt of the consolidated feedback from CBM.


The table below provides a detailed evaluation timeline:





of Days


Document review




Meeting with the project  team




Initial briefing meeting






Partner visits, stakeholder’s meetings, interviews, discussions and Focus group discussions with the Audience




Wrap-up debriefing




Draft  Report writing

Home based



Validation meeting




Final report review

Home based





15  days

 9. Costs and payments

The following batches of payment will be reimbursed upon receipt of proper invoices:

  • 30 % of the consultant cost to be paid at the contract signature and submission of inception report agreed upon
  • 40% of the consultant cost to be paid when the draft report is submitted
  • 30% of the consultant cost to be paid when the final report will be satisfactory approved by the donor

The transport and accommodation costs will be covered by the evaluation team.

CBM reserves the right to terminate the contract in case the agreed team members are not available at the agreed commencement of the assignment and if no adequate replacement can be provided. CBM reserves the right to terminate the contract in case of partial or incomplete work, breach of safeguarding and anti-corruption policy, substandard work or inability to meet the timelines. 


Expressions of interest including the below shall be submitted by 19th September 2021 to

  • Letter of motivation;
  • Detailed Curriculum Vitae (CV) with three references;
  • Copy of degrees;
  • Technical proposal describing how the consultant intends to undertake this assignment;
  • Separate financial proposal;
  • At least three certificates of good completion of similar assignment;
  • B: for a Company, do not forget to include the RDB Registration Certificate and Tax Clearance including TIN Number from RRA.


  • Incomplete offers or applications received after the deadline will not be considered.
  • The final three candidates pre-selected will be invited to present themselves with a PowerPoint presentation to outline their approach to the evaluation and their experience with similar assignments.

Kigali 7th September 2021


Eugenie Mukantagwera

CBM Country Director, Rwanda