Terms of Reference for Evaluation of the Inclusive Quality Education and Community Well-being

Terms of Reference for Evaluation

Evaluation Summary

Project ID and Program/Project Name	P10334/NDICI_CSO_2023_448_351: Enhancing Access to Inclusive Quality Education and Community Well-being for Children with Intellectual Disabilities and Their Families in Kicukiro, City of Kigali.
Name of Partner Organisation/s	Home de la Vierge des Pauvres (HVP)Gatagara
Project start and end dates; phase of project if applicable	19-10-2023 - 18-10-2026
Evaluation Purpose	1. Objectives of the Final Evaluation.The overall objective of the Final Evaluation is to provide project management, donors, and key stakeholders with a conclusive, independent assessment of the project’s total achievements and ultimate impact. Unlike the mid-term assessment, this evaluation focuses on the entire implementation lifecycle from October 2023 to October 2026.Specifically, the Final Evaluation aims to: Determine Achievement of Results: Provide a definitive assessment of the project's performance and the extent to which it reached its intended results across the 10 sectors of Kicukiro District and the City of Kigali. Measure Outcome Fulfillment: Evaluate the final extent to which all project objectives, outputs, and outcomes were achieved by the project’s end. Validate Organizational Learning: Promote learning by documenting final good practices and challenges that occurred throughout the three-year period to inform future project designs. Inform Future Programming: Generate high-level lessons learned and provide strategic recommendations to guide future interventions and potential scaling of the project model. 2. Evaluation Criteria and Key Areas of Final Assessment.The Final Evaluation will provide a closing analysis against the following criteria, with an increased emphasis on legacy and impact: Relevance and Appropriateness: Assess whether the project remained aligned with the evolving needs and priorities of beneficiaries and stakeholders throughout its duration. Quality of Project Design: Evaluate the final validity of the project’s theory of change and whether the initial strategies were sufficient to achieve the desired goals. Coherence: Review the project's long-term alignment and successful complementarity with national policies and other stakeholder initiatives. Effectiveness: Provide a final accounting of the extent to which all planned outputs and outcomes were fully realized. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness: Analyze how effectively project resources were managed over the full three-year period to achieve the results. Impact: Document the evidence of lasting positive changes, intended or unintended, that can be attributed to the project intervention. Sustainability: This is the primary focus of the final report. It will assess the high likelihood that project benefits and outcomes will continue independently now that the implementation period has concluded. 3. Cross-Cutting Themes and Strategic Integration.The final report will conclude how successfully the following themes were woven into the project's fabric: Safeguarding: A final review of the long-term effectiveness of measures used to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. Gender Equality: A summative assessment of how gender considerations were integrated and the degree to which gender equity was promoted. Environmental Considerations: A final evaluation of the project's environmental footprint and the sustainability of its ecological mitigation efforts. Equality and Inclusion: Measuring the ultimate success of the project in fostering meaningful participation for marginalized groups, including persons with disabilities. Networking and Collaboration: Evaluating the strength and longevity of partnerships built at the national, district, and community levels. 4. Conclusion and Recommendations.The findings will culminate in actionable recommendations for stakeholders, intended to maximize the project's legacy and strengthen future accountability to beneficiaries, partners, and donors.
Evaluation Type	Final Evaluation
Contracting 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	14/09/2026-16/10/2026 (25 days)
Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date	October 16, 2026
Recipient of Final Evaluation Report	CBM, EU Delegation to Rwanda, HVP Gatagara

2. Project Description (max 1 page).

CBM has been in partnership with HVP Gatagara since 2020. HVP Gatagara is a Rwandan institution working to improve the lives of persons with disabilities. Established in 1962 by Father Joseph Fraipont NDAGIJIMANA, the institution seeks to radiate God's love to persons with disabilities through healthcare and special education. Its mission is to provide high-quality and sustainable education, orthopaedic, and rehabilitation services to all persons with disabilities in partnership with other stakeholders.

CBM is an international Christian development organization committed to improving the quality of life of persons with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. With more than 115 years of experience working alongside persons with disabilities worldwide, CBM strives to remove the barriers that marginalize them and promote their full inclusion in society.

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 European countries. It is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Through its global partnerships, the European Union promotes the sustainable development of societies, economies, and the environment to ensure that everyone can benefit.

Through funding from the European Union, CBM and HVP Gatagara are implementing a three-year action titled “Enhancing Access to Inclusive Quality Education and Community Well-being for Children with Intellectual Disabilities and Their Families in Kicukiro, City of Kigali.” The overall objective of the project is to improve the living conditions and promote the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities in Rwanda. The specific objective is to strengthen inclusive and equitable education systems for children with disabilities living in the 10 sectors of Kicukiro District, Kigali City.

The target groups for the action are: 341 children with intellectual disabilities, at least 1,000 family members, 72 teachers (32 from HVP and 40 from neighboring mainstream schools, 27 medical and 18 rehabilitation staff who provide required rehabilitation and health care services, 60 local authorities, CSOs (15 OPDs and 3 HROs), and 782 community health workers (CHWs).

The implementation of the action employs different methods to achieve the intended outcomes. Following the signing into law of the Discrimination Against Persons with Disability (Prohibition) Act, 2018, the project is utilising a disability mainstreaming approach. Other approaches employed include Advocacy, community-based inclusive development (CBID), Participatory process, Human Rights Based Approach and Gender Equality.

To achieve the specific objective, the project`s action plan considers the following outputs:

Output 1: The awareness of community members, leaders of faith-based organizations, and local government leaders on disability rights and inclusion is enhanced.
Output 2: The access to education without discrimination for children and youth (3-18 years) with intellectual disabilities is increased.
Output 3: The capacity of parents, community members, faith-based organizations, and local leaders to advocate for the promotion of disability rights is improved.
Output 4: The access to psychosocial support for children with intellectual disabilities is increased.
Output 5: The capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to promote and monitor human rights implementation is increased.

To achieve the desired outputs, the project`s action plan includes the following activities:

Output 1: The awareness of community members, leaders of faith-based organizations, and local government leaders on disability rights and inclusion is enhanced.

A1.1: Raise awareness of approx. 179,780 community members, local leaders, and FBOs on disability rights and inclusion.
A1.2: Technical support including capacity building, facilitation, and empowerment to anti-discrimination Inclusive Education Clubs in 10 mainstream schools to conduct awareness raising on disability inclusion in education.
A1.3: Bi-annual special needs and inclusive education technical committee meetings.
A1.4: Lobbying positively influences implementation of policies and legal frameworks on the rights of children with intellectual disabilities.

Output 2: The access to education without discrimination for children and youth (3-18 years) with intellectual disabilities is increased

A.2.1: Assessment and placement of children with intellectual disabilities.
A.2.2. Setting and evaluating the IEP for each learner with intellectual impairment.
A2.3: Training teachers, technical/administrative staff, and medical professionals on disability inclusion in a workplace (school, rehabilitation centre) setting.
A.2.4: Talent detection and orientation in vocations for 30 learners with intellectual disabilities.
A.2.5. Organize inclusive sports activity competitions on HVP Gatagara’s school (accessible) playground.
A2.6: Teachers’ home-based observation and interaction with the parents'/family members of the learners with intellectual disabilities.

Output 3: The capacity of parents, community members, faith-based organizations, and local leaders to advocate for the promotion of disability rights is improved.

A3.1: Training of at least 500 parents, caretakers, and household members on disability management (specifically regarding children with intellectual disabilities)/disability rights and inclusion, conflict management, nursery, positive parenting, child sexual development, HIV and Aids, etc.
A3.2: Training 60 local leaders and faith-based organizations on disability management and inclusion.
A3.3: Conduct the accessibility audit in 2 schools, 2 government offices, 2 commercial places, 2 Health Centres, and 2 families (having persons with disabilities as family members).
A3.4: Training 782 CHWs on intellectual disability and coaching them on the use of the tool to identify (and follow-up) a child with a suspected disability.
A3.5: Family home visits by community health workers and CBR staff.

Output 4: The access to psychosocial support for children with intellectual disabilities is increased.

A4.1: Counselling sessions for 211 parents of children with intellectual disabilities.
A4.2: Counselling sessions for 100 children with intellectual disabilities and 50 children with no intellectual disability (siblings of children with intellectual disabilities in need).
A4.3: Peer learning among 239 parents of children with intellectual disabilities.

Output 5: The capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to promote and monitor human rights implementation is increased.

A5.1: Training of 15 OPDs members and 3 HROs on Human rights monitoring, reporting, 2030 Agenda, and relevant political processes.
A5.2: Quarterly stakeholders meeting (including local authorities) to monitor the progress in the implementation of UNCRPD and other human rights instruments within the country.
A5.3: Support the OPDs and HROs platform to promote human rights and strengthen advocacy for children with intellectual disabilities at district and sector levels.

3. Evaluation Objective and Intended Use.

The Final Evaluation is intended to provide a comprehensive, summative assessment of the project's entire three-year implementation cycle. It will provide definitive evidence on the overall achievements, outcomes, impacts, and strategic results realized during the implementation period from 19 October 2023 to 18 October 2026.

Specifically, the evaluation will rigorously analyze what worked well, the challenges encountered, and how effectively and efficiently project resources were utilized, thereby providing accountability to the donor (the European Union Delegation to Rwanda), CBM, and HVP Gatagara. In addition, the evaluation will identify opportunities and provide practical recommendations for sustaining, expanding, and scaling up the project's successful interventions to maximize their long-term impact. The findings will serve as a valuable learning resource to document good practices, validate the sustainable integration of interventions into existing community and institutional structures, and inform the design and implementation of future inclusive education and disability-inclusive development programmes in Rwanda and beyond.

3.1. Scope of the evaluation.

The objective of this Final Evaluation is to reflect comprehensively on the entire life cycle of the project, analyzing the processes behind its development, execution, and closure. It serves to examine the definitive extent to which the project achieved its overall and specific objectives, identifying the systemic successes, structural barriers, and key operational lessons learned over the full three-year duration.

Rather than guiding mid-course corrections, this final assessment is intended to be used by HVP Gatagara, CBM, and the European Union to validate institutional accountability, document scalable good practices for disability-inclusive development, and provide a strategic framework for the sustainability of ownership within local community structures.

3.1.1. The evaluator will be required to evaluate the following:

Results of achievement to measure if the project is making satisfactory progress in timely achievement of outputs as per log frame and related delivery of inputs.
Evaluate other critical issues relating to results of achievement and the factors affecting successful implementation of the project.
Strategic positioning and partnerships.
Sustainability of results and exit strategy.
Document the learnings emerging so far from the project implementation.

3.1.2. Stakeholder Collaboration and Institutional Management Evaluation.

The Final Evaluation will comprehensively assess the efficacy of the Partner Project Management model and the quality of multi-stakeholder collaboration maintained throughout the entire three-year project lifespan. It will evaluate how effectively strategic partnerships at local, district, and national levels contributed to programmatic outcomes and systemic sustainability.

The final assessment will specifically audit the roles, performance, and institutional synergies of the following stakeholders:

CBM Rwanda Country Office: Evaluated on its ultimate oversight of project execution, rigorous financial and narrative compliance tracking, implementation of partner capacity-building initiatives, strategic alignment with international disability frameworks, and direct accountability management with the donor.
HVP Gatagara: Assessed on its total execution of the project work plan, operational efficiency, and its overall institutional contribution to regional sector governance and the long-term sustainability of inclusive education initiatives across Rwanda.
NUDOR, OPD Members, and Collectif Tubakunde: Evaluated on the collective impact of OPDs umbrella advocacy in promoting human rights and driving the disability mainstreaming agenda across public and civil society sectors. The evaluation will also measure the success of Collectif Tubakunde in facilitating knowledge exchanges, capturing best practices, and creating strategic synergies within the disability sector
Troupe des Handicapées Twuzuzanye (THT): Assessed the operational reach and performance outcomes of training modules organized for school-based Inclusive Education Clubs.
Rwanda Basic Education Board (REB): Evaluated on the institutionalization, quality, and systemic support provided for the specialized training of teachers in special needs and inclusive education methodologies.
Medical, Rehabilitation & Educational Service Providers: Audited on the functional efficiency of the established medical referral structures and the quality, consistency, and accessibility of clinical care and rehabilitation interventions delivered to targeted children.
Psychosocial Support, Peer Learning & Counseling Frameworks: Evaluated on the overall quality of clinical counseling and peer-led interventions, measuring their direct impact on achieving active, long-term community participation for beneficiaries and their households.
National Council of Persons with Disabilities (NCPD): Assessed on the deployment of technical expertise in national-standardized disability inclusion training, alongside the strategic depth of collaboration achieved with NCPD leadership.
CBID Committees: Evaluated their operational coordination of the Community-Based Inclusive Development program and their localized capacity for sustainable community mobilization.
Community Ecosystems (Parents, Grassroots FBOs, Local Authorities, and CSOs): Assessed on their structural ownership, active participation, and capacity to independently champion human rights-based disability inclusion frameworks beyond the project's funding cycle.
Gender and Safeguarding Stakeholders: Evaluated on their performance in embedding protection protocols, mitigating protection risks, and ensuring equitable gender dynamics across all active project components.

3.1.3. Principal Tasks of the Final Evaluation.

The Final Evaluation is structured around the following principal tasks to comprehensively review and document the overall success, performance, and institutional footprint of the three-year project lifespan:

Comprehensive Project Design and Relevance Audit: Evaluate the final alignment of the project's design and logic with Rwanda’s national development strategies, national disability policy frameworks, HVP Gatagara’s institutional mandate, and the specific rights and socio-economic needs of the targeted beneficiaries.
Summative Cost-Effectiveness and Efficiency Analysis: Conduct a conclusive assessment of how resource allocations, financial inputs, and operational expenditures translated into sustainable results, evaluating the overall cost-effectiveness of the project interventions.
Social Inclusion and Long-Term Impact Assessment: Measure the final socio-inclusion impact, specifically documenting changes in the active socio-economic and political participation of persons with intellectual disabilities and their families within the target communities.
Strategic Approach Evaluation: Critique the cumulative relevance and effectiveness of the project's core modalities, including disability mainstreaming, Community-Based Inclusive Development (CBID), advocacy, and human rights-based frameworks, in achieving the intended targets.
Output and Output-to-Outcome Performance Review: Analyze the final performance metrics of the project to determine the total effectiveness, economic efficiency, and chronological timeliness achieved in delivering all five planned operational outputs.
Inputs, Monitoring, and Institutional Reporting Audit: Assess the quality, sufficiency, and timeline of technical and financial inputs, while evaluating the robustness and long-term utility of the established project monitoring, data management, and reporting systems.
Institutional Governance and Risk Analysis: Review the absolute relevance and operational efficiency of the project’s management and implementation arrangements. Identify overarching structural strengths, institutional weaknesses, definitive lessons learned, and external risk factors beyond management control that directly influence final results.
Sustainability and Local Structural Ownership Assessment: Evaluate the institutionalization of project activities within existing community mechanisms, local government frameworks, and community health networks, assessing the long-term viability of the final exit strategy.
Strategic Recommendations for Future Inclusive Programming: Provide definitive, actionable, and forward-looking recommendations to key implementing partners, institutional stakeholders, and donors to shape future disability-inclusive development models, policy advocacy, and institutional support strategies in Rwanda.

3.1.4. Anticipated Limitations and Mitigation Measures.

The following potential limitations may be encountered during the evaluation process, together with the proposed mitigation measures:
Accessibility: Given the diversity of the target groups, including children with intellectual disabilities, their caregivers, and other stakeholders, the evaluation team may encounter challenges in accessing all respondents and ensuring meaningful participation. To address this, the evaluation team is expected to adopt an appropriate mixed-methods approach, which may include face-to-face interviews, virtual interviews where feasible, focus group discussions, and the use of sign language interpreters or other reasonable accommodations as required. Targeted field visits should also be conducted to ensure comprehensive and inclusive data collection.
Scope of Visits/Interviews: Given the comprehensive nature of a final evaluation, balancing deep-dive reviews with broad stakeholder coverage was essential. While it was not feasible to conduct exhaustive on-site visits for every single targeted group, strategic sampling ensured that key institutions and stakeholders were thoroughly interviewed, prioritizing official and highly representative perspectives.

3.1.5. Target Audience and Learning.

The Final Evaluation will provide a comprehensive, summative assessment of the project's achievements, challenges, outcomes, and overall impact over its three-year implementation period (October 19, 2023 - October 18, 2026). The evaluation findings will inform HVP Gatagara, the CBM Rwanda Country Office, the European Union Delegation to Rwanda, and other key stakeholders on the project's overall performance and results.
The Final Evaluation Report will serve as an important accountability and learning document for the donor, the European Union Delegation to Rwanda, CBM, HVP Gatagara, and other stakeholders. It will include an Executive Summary, clear presentation of key findings (including tables, charts, or other visual illustrations where appropriate), conclusions, lessons learned, and practical, evidence-based recommendations to support future programming, policy development, and decision-making. The report should also be suitable for sharing key findings with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders through accessible communication formats, such as presentations, briefs, or posters, as appropriate.
The evaluation process is expected to be participatory and inclusive, ensuring that the perspectives of key stakeholders; including project beneficiaries, HVP Gatagara staff, CBM Rwanda Country Office staff, local authorities, schools, community representatives, and other relevant actors; are captured and reflected in the findings. The evaluation will identify project strengths, challenges, enabling and limiting factors, lessons learned, and opportunities for sustaining and scaling successful interventions;
The primary users of the evaluation findings will include:
The European Union Delegation to Rwanda;
CBM Rwanda Country Office and CBM technical teams;
HVP Gatagara Board of Directors and Management;
HVP Gatagara project implementation staff;
Government institutions and local authorities, including the Ministry of Education and Kicukiro District;
Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) and other project partners;
Persons with intellectual disabilities, their families, caregivers, and community representatives; and
Other development partners and stakeholders interested in inclusive education and disability-inclusive development.

4. Evaluation Questions.

The evaluation questions were designed to achieve the objective by detailing project-specific areas of inquiry aligned with the standard OECD-DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

As this is a final evaluation, strong emphasis will be placed on assessing the longer-term impact, sustainability, and contribution of the project’s interventions beyond October 2026. The evaluation will also examine the extent to which disability inclusion was mainstreamed across the project, alongside the effectiveness and contribution of specific disability-inclusive interventions supported by the project.

Cross-cutting areas of inquiry to be integrated throughout the evaluation include:

Gender equity and equality, including the extent to which gender considerations were reflected in project design, implementation, outcomes, and benefits.
Child safeguarding, including the extent to which safeguarding principles and mechanisms were integrated and applied across project activities.
Disability inclusion and mainstreaming, including:

How disability inclusion was understood and applied throughout the project and across its activities;
The extent to which disability inclusion was mainstreamed in project approaches, processes, services, and outcomes;
Successful examples and good practices demonstrating the mainstreaming of disability inclusion;
The contribution of specific disability-inclusion activities supported by the project, including their relevance, effectiveness, and contribution to advancing the inclusion of persons with disabilities;
The extent to which these targeted activities contributed to the meaningful and sustainable inclusion of the targeted individuals in education, community life, and other relevant settings;
Challenges and barriers encountered in promoting the inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream education and the wider community; and
Lessons and recommendations on how similar projects could more effectively advance disability inclusion and mainstreaming in education and society.

Environmental sustainability, including the extent to which environmental considerations were incorporated into project implementation and whether project results can be sustained in an environmentally responsible manner.

4.1. Relevance, Appropriateness, and Quality of Design.

Strategic Alignment: The Final Evaluation will assess whether the project addressed the right priorities and whether its design and implementation approach were relevant and appropriate to Rwanda's context, national development needs, and policy priorities. The evaluation will also examine the extent to which the project responded to the specific needs, priorities, and rights of its intended target groups, particularly children with intellectual disabilities and their families, and whether the interventions were appropriate, inclusive, and responsive to their identified needs and expectations. Furthermore, the evaluation will assess whether the project's design remained relevant throughout implementation and whether it effectively adapted to any changes in the operating context.

Design & Rationale: Was the project based on a clear, focused rationale and a realistic baseline analysis of the country’s situation?
Risk Management: How systematically did HVP Gatagara and CBM assess external risks and internal threats to the program and its interventions?
Disability Rights: To what degree did the project explicitly contribute to promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities?
Institutional Alignment: To what extent were the strategic approaches aligned with the respective missions of HVP Gatagara, CBM, and the European Union (EU)?
MEAL Systems (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, & Learning):
- Were the logical framework (logframe) indicators effective in demonstrating measurable results?
- How was the project monitored throughout its lifecycle?
- How was institutional learning captured and shared? Are there focal areas that require adjustments or reconsideration for future phases?
Qualitative Team Reflection:
- How does the HVP Gatagara project team describe their personal experience and engagement during the project lifecycle? What did the team value the most?
- What "three wishes" or key recommendations does the team have to enhance the health and vitality of similar future interventions?
- What are the three achievements that the team considers to be effective for the short, mid, and long term because of this project?
- What three key challenges does the team consider having affected the project's impact in the short, medium, and long term?

4.2. Coherence.

Internal Coherence & Synergies: How well did the individual project interventions fit together? What were the internal synergies and interlinkages between this project and other initiatives carried out by HVP Gatagara or the government?
Policy & Normative Consistency: To what extent did the project align with relevant international norms, and disability standards adhered to by the institution and the government? Do other sector policies support or undermine intervention?
External Coherence & Coordination: How consistent was the project with the interventions of other development actors in the same context? Did it promote complementarity, harmonization, and coordination while avoiding duplication of efforts?
Regional Replication: How are the project lessons learned relevant to future planned interventions in other parts of the region?

4.3. Effectiveness (of Planning and Implementation).

Objective Achievement: Did the project achieve its specific objectives and overall goals? How successful was it in terms of stakeholder engagement and results of delivery?
Indicator Verification: To what extent have the indicators for individual project interventions been met? (This must be assessed by cross-referencing existing project data, including Project Progress Reports [PPR], field visit logs, narrative reports, statistics, and activity reports.
Government Collaboration & Policy Influence:
- How effective was the project in working with local and national government structures?
- To what extent did the project team and partners successfully influence government policies, systems, and practices to be more inclusive of disability?
Donor & Partner Synergy: How effectively did the project interact with and influence other donors, and which engagement approaches worked best?
Communication: How successfully did HVP Gatagara communicate its results, emerging good practices, and lessons learned to the wider development community?

4.4. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness.

Resource Management: How well were financial, human, and material resources planned, allocated, and utilized?
Capacity Building & Sustainability:
- How was partner-level capacity development resourcing, and what measurable local capacity was built?
- Specifically, what organizational capacities of HVP Gatagara were strengthened by CBM?
- In turn, how were the capacities of Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) and other local stakeholders strengthened by HVP Gatagara?
Partnership Efficiency: How did the working relationship between HVP Gatagara and the CBM Country Office directly improve operational efficiency?
Stakeholder Engagement: Which stakeholders co-operated most successfully, and which groups remained less involved?
Core Vitality Factors: What were the foundational elements or core factors that gave life to this project, without which it could not have succeeded?
Economic & Social Impact:
- How efficient was the project relative to its budget (value for money)?
- What are the indicative qualitative markers of Social Return on Investment (SROI) resulting from this project?

4.5. Impact and Contribution to Change.

Overall Difference: What measurable differences (intended and unintended, positive and negative) has the project made in the lives of the target groups? What are the long-term qualitative and quantitative consequences for the beneficiaries?
Macro-Level Contribution: What evidence demonstrates that HVP Gatagara has built institutional capacity to contribute to national development? How has the project added value to the country’s broader development agenda?
Advocacy & Mainstreaming: How effectively has the project influenced national or local advocacy efforts and mainstreamed disability inclusion into broader development programs?
Structural & Behavioral Change:
- What structural changes (institutional, policy, or environmental) were achieved through the project’s interventions?
- To what extent have awareness-raising and advocacy activities led to verifiable behavior change among the target groups, communities, and local authorities?
Strategic Meta-Analysis: What are the defining strengths, weaknesses, and overarching lessons learned from this project that should be documented for HVP Gatagara and the CBM Country Office?

4.6. Sustainability.

Continuity of Benefits: Which project components, services, or positive actions are most likely to continue independently after the project's official closure?
Resource Allocation for Longevity: How well were financial and human resources managed and allocated throughout the implementation phase to secure long-term financial or operational sustainability?
Participation of Persons with Disabilities: How actively did persons with disabilities participate in the design, implementation, monitoring, and final evaluation of the project to foster local ownership?
Risk & Constraint Analysis:
- What major internal or external factors influenced the project’s sustainability, and what significant obstacles were faced during implementation?
- How did the project team overcome these operational constraints? What mitigation and coping strategies are recommended for future program design?
Feedback & Accountability Systems: How effectively did the beneficiary feedback mechanism function as an information tool to systematically improve services, activities, and training?
Optimization: In hindsight, how could project activities have been structured to achieve an even higher level of institutional or community sustainability?
Future Prioritization: What specific future needs should the evaluation team prioritize for upcoming institutional support or successor programs?

4.7. Safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults.

Safe Environments: How effectively was a safe environment for children and vulnerable adults established and maintained throughout all stages of project planning and implementation?
Policy Compliance & Awareness:
- To what degree are CBM’s child safeguarding standards and HVP Gatagara’s own safeguarding policies known, understood, and adhered to by various project stakeholders?
- What measures and control mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the partner organization, consultants, and field staff strictly respected these safeguarding principles?
Stakeholder Capacity & Training: How aware are community groups and institutional stakeholders regarding child rights and protection? What specific prevention and protection activities were executed?
Risk & Impact Review: Did any project activities cause unforeseen negative impacts or introduce secondary risks to children or vulnerable adults' safety?
Reporting Mechanisms: What active feedback and whistleblowing mechanisms are available to safely report potential violations of child safeguarding principles?
Future Continuity: How are community structures and local partner organizations prepared to maintain these prevention, protection, and safeguarding environments post-project?

4.8. Gender Equality.

Participation & Decision-Making: Has there been a measurable change in the active participation of women and men (particularly those with disabilities) in community, social, economic, or political decision-making processes within the target area? Is there an observable shift in local power dynamics?
Demographic Representation: What is the final gender ratio of direct beneficiaries reached? Does this accurately mirror the demographic ratio of males and females with disabilities in the target region?
Equity of Access & Support: Did men, women, boys, and girls receive equitable access to project activities and tailored support to ensure their distinct gender-specific needs were addressed?
Caregiver Dynamics & Volunteer Structures:
- Was the project’s focus on women caregivers appropriate, or did it inadvertently reinforce unequal domestic burdens regarding the care of children with disabilities? How effectively were men engaged in caregiver support initiatives?
- Did the utilization of volunteers (e.g. Community-Based Rehabilitation [CBR] activities) create power differentials between genders, or did it serve to empower a specific group?
Training Disparities: Were there any clear variances in training engagement or activity outcomes based on gender?

4.9. Equality and Inclusion.

Community Stigma & Perception: Has community-wide awareness and understanding of disability increased? Is there documented evidence of decreased stigma, reduced discrimination, and a deeper appreciation for the capacities and contributions of persons with disabilities?
Rights Awareness: Did women and men with disabilities gain an equal, rights-based understanding of their legal entitlements?
Barriers to Service Access: Were women, men, girls, and boys with disabilities equally able to access the full spectrum of services provided? What distinct physical, institutional, or attitudinal barriers did different groups face, and how can these be systematically addressed in future designs?
Staff Capacity: Did project personnel and local partners receive adequate training on the intersectional and specific needs of women, girls, men, and boys with disabilities?
Institutional Inclusion: To what extent have HVP Gatagara's internal organizational policies, administrative procedures, and operational decision-making frameworks been updated to be thoroughly disability-inclusive?

5. Methodology.

The Final Evaluation will employ a mixed-methods approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. The evaluation will review relevant project documentation and conduct consultations with key stakeholders, including project staff, CBM Rwanda Country Office personnel, HVP Gatagara staff, government representatives, community stakeholders, beneficiaries, caregivers, teachers, and other relevant actors involved in the implementation of the project.

The evaluation will assess the entire project implementation period from 19 October 2023 to 18 October 2026, focusing on the project's relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, inclusion, and contribution to improving educational opportunities and well-being for children with intellectual disabilities.

The review will draw upon information from baseline studies, monitoring and evaluation systems, project statistics, narrative and financial reports, monitoring visit reports, Mid-Term Evaluation findings, and other relevant documentation.

Fieldwork will be conducted in Kigali City, particularly in Kicukiro District and selected project intervention sites. The evaluation process will include:
A desk review of relevant project documents, monitoring data, reports, and other supporting evidence;
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with project staff, partner representatives, government stakeholders, school personnel, and other relevant stakeholders;
A clearly defined sampling approach, including a description of how the sample will be identified and selected, the criteria used for sample selection, and the rationale for ensuring that the selected respondents and sites are representative of the different stakeholder groups and project interventions.
The evaluation methodology should ensure that the sampling strategy is transparent, appropriate, and sufficient to generate credible, reliable, and representative findings.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries, caregivers, teachers, and community representatives;
Direct observations of project-supported interventions and facilities;
Validation meetings to discuss preliminary findings and conclusions.

The evaluator shall ensure meaningful participation of children with disabilities, caregivers, women, men, and other stakeholder groups, using accessible and inclusive approaches throughout the evaluation process.

Particular attention shall be given to the principles of:

Equality and Inclusion;
Gender Equality;
Disability Inclusion;
Child and Adult Safeguarding;
Advocacy and Human Rights-Based Approaches;
Accessibility and Universal Design;
Environmental Sustainability and Climate Resilience.

The evaluation report should include high-quality photographs, appropriately captioned, and supported by informed consent from the individuals featured.

6. Environmental Considerations.

The Final Evaluation shall assess environmental considerations throughout the project implementation period, including:

Whether environmental and ecological considerations were integrated into project design and implementation;
Any positive or negative environmental effects resulting from project activities;
The extent to which climate-related factors affected project implementation and beneficiaries' living conditions;
Lessons learned regarding environmental sustainability and recommendations for future programming.

7. Management Responsibilities and Evaluation Team.

7.1. Commissioning Responsibility.

The Final Evaluation will be commissioned by the CBM in Rwanda Country Office. As CBM Germany holds the contractual agreement with the European Union, methodological approaches, reporting formats, and quality assurance processes will be aligned with CBM International requirements and donor expectations.

The implementing partner, HVP Gatagara, will actively participate in the evaluation process, including reviewing the Terms of Reference, facilitating field activities, reviewing draft reports, and contributing to the Management Response following completion of the evaluation.

The European Union Delegation to Rwanda may be consulted on the evaluation process and will receive the final evaluation report for information and follow-up where applicable.

7.2. Management Responsibilities and Logistics.

HVP Gatagara will facilitate field-level coordination, stakeholder engagement, and logistical arrangements necessary for the evaluation. The partner shall ensure that all venues and processes are accessible to persons with disabilities.

The Evaluation Team shall be responsible for arranging any required interpretation and translation services, including sign language interpretation, where necessary. CBM and HVP Gatagara will support identification of suitable service providers as required.

The CBM Rwanda Country Office will:

Facilitate communication between the Evaluation Team and stakeholders;
Ensure availability of relevant CBM personnel for interviews and consultations;
Coordinate review and feedback on draft reports;
Organize an inception meeting and a final dissemination and validation meeting.

The Evaluation Team shall maintain independence throughout the process while ensuring regular communication with CBM and HVP Gatagara.

7.3. Evaluation Team.

The Final Evaluation shall be conducted by qualified independent consultants with demonstrated experience in evaluating disability-inclusive development, education, and donor-funded projects.

The evaluation team should collectively possess expertise in:

Inclusive Education;
Disability Inclusion;
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL);
Child Rights and Protection;
Community Development;
Gender Equality and Social Inclusion;
Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies.

CBM strongly encourages the inclusion of a qualified evaluator with a disability and/or a representative from a Persons with Disabilities with demonstrated experience in disability-inclusive programming in Rwanda.

To preserve impartiality, members of the HVP Gatagara Board of Directors and project staff shall not be part of the evaluation team.

All members of the evaluation team shall comply with CBM's Child and Adult Safeguarding Policy, Code of Conduct, Anti-Corruption Policy, Data Protection Policy, and all applicable ethical standards.

8. Deliverables.

The Evaluation Team Leader shall submit all deliverables in English.

The Final Evaluation process shall generate the following outputs:

8.1. Inception Report.

Due: Within one week of contract signature

The Inception Report shall include:

Detailed evaluation methodology;
Evaluation matrix;
Data collection tools;
Sampling strategy;
Work plan and timeline;
Team composition and responsibilities;
Logistical arrangements;
Ethical considerations and safeguarding measures.

8.2. Draft Final Evaluation Report.

Due: Within one week after completion of fieldwork

The Draft Report shall include:

Executive Summary;
Background and context;
Evaluation methodology and limitations;
Findings by OECD-DAC evaluation criteria;
Conclusions;
Lessons learned;
Good practices;
Recommendations.

8.3. Final Evaluation Report.

Due: Within two weeks after receiving consolidated feedback from CBM and stakeholders.

The Final Report shall include:

Executive Summary (maximum three pages);
Project background and context;
Methodology;
Evaluation findings;
Conclusions;
Lessons learned;
Best practices;
Recommendations;
Annexes, including:
- Terms of Reference;
- Evaluation matrix;
- List of stakeholders consulted;
- Data collection tools;
- Bibliography and reference documents.

The report should provide clear, practical, evidence-based recommendations to inform future disability-inclusive education programming and sustainability planning beyond the project period.

8.4. Indicative Evaluation Schedule.

Task	Location	Duration	Scheduled Dates (2026)
Inception Meeting & Report	Online / CBM Office	1 Day	September 14 (Mon)
Desk Review	Consultant's Desk	3 Days	September 15, 16, 17 (Tue–Thu)
Evaluation Planning & Tool Finalization	Online	1 Day	September 18 (Fri)
Field Data Collection	Project Sites	6 Days	September 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 (Mon–Fri, Mon)
Debriefing & Validation of Preliminary Findings	Partner/CBM Office	1 Day	September 29 (Tue)
Data Analysis & Draft Report Writing	Consultant's Desk	5 Days	September 30, October 01, 02, 05, 06 (Wed–Fri, Mon–Tue)
Review of Draft Report by CBM & Stakeholders	Online	3 Days	October 07, 08, 09 (Wed–Fri)
Finalization of Evaluation Report	Consultant's Desk	3 Days	October 12, 13, 14 (Mon–Wed)
Final Dissemination & Wrap-Up Workshop	CBM / Partner Office	1 Day	October 15 (Thu)
Submission of Final Evaluation Report	Consultant's Desk	1 Day	October 16 (Fri)

Total Estimated Duration: 25 Days

9. Payment Schedule.

Payments shall be made upon submission and approval of the agreed deliverables as follows:

30% upon contract signature and approval of the Inception Report;
40% upon submission and acceptance of the Draft Final Evaluation Report;
30% upon submission and approval of the Final Evaluation Report.

The Evaluation Team shall be responsible for all transport, accommodation, communication, and operational costs associated with the assignment unless otherwise agreed.

CBM reserves the right to terminate the contract in cases of non-performance, breach of safeguarding policies, misconduct, substandard work, or failure to meet agreed timelines.

10. Applications.

Expressions of Interest shall include: