Burkina Faso, Egypt, Lebanon, Madagascar, Philippines: Consultants for the Final External Evaluation of the "Youth for Change" Programme

Terms of Reference: 

• Final external evaluation
• Youth for Change Programme
• Phase 1 (2021-2023)
• Programme Agreement Youth as agents of change
• Co-financed by AFD
• Agence française de développement (French Development Agency)
• Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Egypt, Lebanon, Philippines
• January 2023

List of Acronyms:

• AFD - Agence Française de Développement - French Development Agency
• CRBA - Child Rights-based Approach
• CPP - Child Protection Policy
• CSO - Civil Society Organisation
• FGD - Focus Group Discussion
• NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation
• OECD-DAC - Development Assistance Committee - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
• SC - Steering Committee
• ToR - Terms of reference

1. Description of the Sponsoring Organisation and the Programme: 

1.1 Sponsoring Structure: 

Asmae (Association Sœur Emmanuelle) is a French international NGO created in 1980 by Sister Emmanuelle. Asmae's work aims to support vulnerable children and young people and their families by providing tailored support to local communities, entities and CSOs working in the field of education, vocational training and integration, protection and “living together”. Asmae works in partnership with civil society organisations in the countries where it operates at international level: currently Burkina Faso, Madagascar, Egypt, Lebanon, India and the Philippines. Since 2018, Asmae has been committed to better taking gender into account in its interventions. The rights-based approach and participation are also pillars of Asmae's methodology of intervention.

The Youth for Change programme, Asmae's first multi-country programme (Lebanon, Madagascar, Philippines, Burkina Faso and Egypt), was developed on the basis of the findings and challenges described below.

1.2 Background of the Programme: 

In 2018, young people represented about 16% of the world's population, and this rate can reach 24%[1] in the countries covered by the programme. The strong demographic growth (current and future), the difficulties of access to employment linked in particular to early school dropout, the lack of application of legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as the phenomena that result from this (development of the informal economy, migration, cultural entrenchment) make the support of young people a major challenge for social cohesion.

Despite the different contexts, at the political level, institutions are showing a new awareness and are seeking to promote youth and the role of young people in society. African states have declared the period 2009-2018 as the "African Youth Decade" and have mobilised resources to provide solutions, particularly in terms of training and the promotion of youth employment. Ambitious education policies are underway and the vocational training sector has been upgraded, responding to the need for rapid and effective training for young people. At the same time, over the last two decades, governments have been increasingly systematic in eliminating discriminatory aspects of their legislation and have passed laws promoting gender equality and combating violence against women. However, there are strong economic, social and cultural barriers to putting youth and women on the agenda.

In their school and professional careers in particular, young people have insufficient and unequal access to often incomplete facilities. At the educational level, equality between girls and boys in primary education is now achieved, but few countries have reached this target at all levels of education. Despite the increase in enrolment rates, many challenges remain. In the target countries, retention and success in school are persistent issues. A study conducted by Asmae on the determinants of adolescents' school success in the Centre region of Burkina Faso reveals that 18.1% of boys and 15.2% of girls dropped out at post-primary level. These inequalities increase for young people who are subject to other forms of exclusion: disability, gender, refugee status. For example, a study carried out by Asmae in Egypt in 2019 reveals that very few schools are able to offer inclusive education to young people with disabilities.

Access to employment is also a major challenge, with various obstacles in the countries of intervention: mismatch between training and the employment sector, unemployment, prevalence of informal work. Young people's poor knowledge of the market and its potential often results in the reproduction of known models such as family and community models. Globally, young people are three times more likely to be unemployed than adults. Marital status is also a determining factor as it is positively associated with the likelihood of obtaining paid employment for men, which is the opposite for women.

For example, in 2018, "globally, one-fifth of young people were not in school, employment or training, and at this critical time in their lives, they were not gaining work experience, acquiring new skills or upgrading their skills through education or vocational training programmes. As a result of a very marked gender difference, young women are twice as likely as young men to be unemployed or excluded from the labour force, to be out of school and to have no access to training. Strengthening young people's access to quality education and appropriate training and vocational support therefore appears to be a priority lever for action.

At the same time, the improvement of these systems must be accompanied by the strengthening of the protection frameworks in which young people evolve (systemic nature of the integration process). Indeed, in the various countries of intervention, there is a lack of formalised protection frameworks for young people in situations of danger, which has a limiting effect on their educational, professional and social careers. In Egypt, governorate and school protection committees are the basis of the child and youth protection system. However, the results of the study conducted in Egypt by Asmae confirm the lack of human and material resources of these committees to fulfil their roles. A survey conducted by UNICEF adds that 70% of adolescents aged 13 to 15 years report having been harassed at least once in the 30 days preceding the survey. This percentage rises to 53% for young boys and 49% for young girls in the Philippines. The 2017 National Demographic and Health Survey also reveals that 80% of respondents aged 13-24 years say they have experienced some form of violence in their lives, whether at school, at home or outside. In Burkina Faso, the NGO Educo conducted a survey in the outskirts of Ouagadougou, which revealed that "34.6% of children think they are not protected against violence and 75% think that girls suffer more violence than boys". It is therefore a question of training those involved in the protection sector (partners, but also institutional representatives, community leaders, etc.) to identify, accompany and refer young people, both girls and boys, in situations of danger. At the same time, informing young people (and those around them) about their rights must be another priority action lever.

1.3 Presentation of the Programme: 

Youth for Change, Asmae's first multi-country programme (Lebanon, Madagascar, Philippines, Burkina Faso and Egypt) is built on the various diagnoses mentioned above and aims to respond to the main challenges mentioned above. Essentially deployed in urban areas, the programme gives impetus to a new dynamic around young people who are strengthened to be actors of change in their society. Following a Rights-Based Approach, the programme aims to empower more than 8,000 rights holders through access to quality education, training and protection services. In parallel, duty bearers are also supported in setting up or strengthening the quality of services, thus the capacities of more than 400 education and protection professionals from the partners are strengthened.

The intervention is based on four specific objectives from which eight results are derived: (1) to improve the inclusion of young girls and boys and their educational and professional support; (2) to support young girls and boys in the realisation of their right to protection by strengthening institutional frameworks and participatory mechanisms; (3) to strengthen the empowerment of young girls and boys and the partners involved in the action; (4) to capitalise on and formalise Asmae's positioning on the theme of youth.

Target Groups:

9,366 direct beneficiaries in the 5 countries:

• 8,153 young people (4,153 girls and 4,000 boys) aged between 10 and 25 whose rights to education, protection and empowerment were enhanced.
• 413 education and protection professionals accompanied and trained.
• 800 families benefiting from support and parenting education sessions.

44,412 indirect beneficiaries in the 5 countries: community members (other young people involved in the activities, siblings and parents of the young people, volunteers, participants of the film-debates and awareness-raising sessions); institutional representatives

98 structures reached: 11 partners, 18 schools and vocational training establishments, 57 civil society organisations (CSOs) in the sector and institutional structures, 6 parents' associations, 6 adolescent clubs.

1.4 Objectives and Expected Results of the Programme[2]: 

Global objective: To promote the rights to education, protection and empowerment of young people in 5 countries, by supporting and strengthening their capacities and those of the local partners who accompany them

Indicators: 1/ The right of 8,153 young people (4,153 girls and 4,000 boys) to quality education and protection is reinforced. 2/ 600 young people (301 girls and 299 boys) develop citizenship and community initiatives.

3/ The quality of educational practice of 413 education and care professionals is improved.

Specific Objectives and Results: 

Indicators: 

SO1: Improve the educational and professional integration and support of young people.

• 1/ 5550 young people (2941 girls and 2609 boys) benefited from an adapted follow-up by professionals trained during the programme (Burkina, Madagascar, Lebanon, Egypt)
• 2/ The success rate in Junior Secondary Education Certificate (BEPC) and Baccalaureate (BAC) exams has increased in the partner schools from one year to the next (Burkina)
• 3/ At least 60% of girls and boys have completed their professional training (Madagascar) and/or found an internship or a job (Lebanon)

R1.1 The quality of education for young people in schools has been improved.

• 1/ At least 80% of the professionals trained implement a motivating and benevolent pedagogical stance adapted to the public (Burkina, Egypt).
• 2/Surveys among students show that at least 70% of young people say they are more motivated from one year to the next (Burkina)

R1.2 The socio-professional integration of young people into the workforce has been promoted.

• 1/ 80% of the professionals have strengthened their capacities for a better integration of young people into employment (Madagascar, Lebanon, Egypt)
• 2/ At the end of the programme, 640 young people have followed a pre-training/training course to develop their capacity to integrate professionally (Madagascar, Lebanon, Egypt)

SO2: Support young people in realising their right to protection by strengthening institutional frameworks and participatory mechanisms

• Referral/protection systems at local and/or national level were strengthened during the programme (Burkina, Lebanon, Madagascar, Egypt, Philippines)

R2.1 Young people evolve in an environment that is more aware of the issues they face.

• 1/ At least 15,000 parents and community members have been reached by awareness-raising activities aimed at improving the educational, social and professional integration of young people (Burkina, Egypt, Philippines, Lebanon)
• 2/ At least 4 gender-sensitive activities/practices have been introduced among project partners (Burkina, Lebanon, Madagascar, Philippines)

R.2.2 The protective framework for young people has been strengthened.

• 1/ 70% of professionals and focal points trained are able to identify, support and/or refer situations of young people at risk or in danger (Burkina, Lebanon, Madagascar, Egypt)
• 2/ 1425 young people have benefited from appropriate psychosocial support (Burkina, Lebanon, Madagascar).

SO3: Empower young people and partners of the Action.

• 1/ Young volunteers have implemented at least 6 initiatives (youth, gender, disability) for their communities (Lebanon, Philippines, Egypt)
• 2/ Asmae & its main partners have developed their collaborative network during the programme, with 50% having established at least 1 new technical and/or institutional partnership (Lebanon, Madagascar, Egypt, Philippines, Burkina)

R3.1: Young people's empowerment and civic engagement has been strengthened

• 1/ An adolescent club is functional in each partner school (Burkina)
• 2/ At the end of the programme, the percentage of young girls and boys who declare being able to develop a community-based and civic initiative has increased by 50% (Lebanon, Philippines, Egypt).

R3.2: The organisational and representative capacities of 8 partners are strengthened.

• 1/ The 8 partners supported have strengthened their management and governance capacities compared to the initial diagnosis (Burkina, Lebanon, Madagascar, Egypt, Philippines)

OS4: Capitalise on and formalise Asmae's positioning around the theme of youth

• 1/ Asmae's action with young people has been integrated into its thematic intervention framework.
• 2/ Asmae is a member of at least three new influential networks/platforms on youth issues (at head office and in the countries of intervention).

R4.1: The contributions of the programme are valued and shared.

• At least 3 good practices have been capitalised on.

R4.2: Asmae's intervention on the theme of youth is recognised.

• 1/ Asmae has organised at least 5 meetings to share experiences (Burkina, Madagascar, Egypt, Philippines, France)
• 2/ A newsletter is published every six months and distributed widely.

2. Description of the Final Evaluation: 

2.1 Context of the Final Evaluation: 

The Youth for Change programme is planned to run in three 3-year phases. Phase 1 of the programme started on 1 January 2021 and will end on 31 December 2023 and will continue with a second phase from 1 January 2024. In this context, the final evaluation will be an important step both in analysing the success of phase 1 - actions in the field and at head office - and in feeding into the development of phase 2 of the programme (2024-2026), which is currently being considered. It is therefore in a strong learning process that this evaluation is envisaged.

2.2 Scope of the Final Evaluation - Criteria: 

The final external evaluation will cover all countries of the programme. It should be noted that mid-term evaluations/reviews were carried out in 2022, with various modalities (external/internal driven by head office/internal driven by the field) and a "country" prism. It is expected that the final evaluation will ensure a strong "programme" perspective and allow for a harmonised understanding and analysis of the actions carried out in the different countries.

The general objective of the final evaluation is to draw up a consolidated assessment of the programme's results, analysing in particular the level of progress of the indicators and the changes to which the programme has contributed (including at the level of head office actions). It will also assess the quality of the intervention implemented by Asmae and its partners, in terms of services and support offered to young people and the effects on their power to act; or to evaluate the quality of the support provided to CSO and institutional partners. The evaluation will report on the findings, lessons to be learned and propose recommendations for phase 2 (bearing in mind the prospect of phase 3) and, through a participatory and constructive approach, will ensure that the various stakeholders take ownership of it.

The evaluation will also have to cover the cross-cutting axes (gender, participation, CRBA) and thus integrate a precise analysis of the intervention under these prisms. The evaluation should be gender sensitive and participatory. Evaluators should refer to several key Asmae documents (protection policy, Youth for Change gender strategy) as well as AFD toolkits[3] (2 - Gender; 3 - Biodiversity and climate; 4 - Youth).

The assessment will be conducted according to the OECD DAC criteria[4] :

• Project coherence [The extent to which the intervention is consistent with other interventions within a country, sector or institution]
• Relevance of the project [the extent to which the objectives of the development action correspond to the expectations of the beneficiaries, the needs of the country, global priorities, partner and donor policies];
• Overall project effectiveness [The extent to which the objectives of the development action have been or are being achieved, taking into account their relative importance];
• Project efficiency [The extent to which resources (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted into results in a cost-effective manner];
• Project impact [Long-term effects, positive and negative, primary and secondary, induced by a development action, directly or not, intentionally or unintentionally];
• Sustainability [Sustainability measures whether the benefits of a development activity are likely to continue after the donor has completed funding it].

In the final evaluation of phase 1 of the programme, emphasis will be placed on the criteria of coherence, relevance and effectiveness. Efficiency, impact and sustainability may also be considered but to a lesser extent: this priority being given to avoid fragmentation and too superficial an evaluation. Nevertheless, the anticipated effects (impact) could be highlighted to consolidate existing results and encourage changes at the next level of effects, during phase 2.

2.3 Evaluation Questions to be Considered: 

The envisaged evaluation questions are presented below. They will need to be analysed and prioritised with related proposals from the consultants.

Criteria:

Suggested Questions: 

Coherence: the coherence of the project [the extent to which the intervention is consistent with other interventions within a country, sector or institution]

Alignment with national policy frameworks and synergy of action with the sector's actors:

• To what extent does the programme fit into existing youth policies, in all the countries of intervention? In the Philippines, to what extent is the programme aligned with the Department of Education's gender policy[5] and the Gender and Development national framework?
• To what extent has Asmae and its partners joined networks on youth issues and developed synergies with other actors in the sector? What about the involvement in networks on gender-based violence (particularly in the Philippines)?

Training and professional integration:

• Does Asmae have a clear position on its contribution to the different stages of the youth integration process? Does it have a similar approach between the different countries (including on the modalities of partnership with CSOs, training centres, public structures, etc.)? Recommendations are expected on the relevance of the articulations between the different actors of the VT and professional integration and Asmae’s position.

Child Protection Policy:

• Are the interventions consistent with Asmae's child protection policy?
• Do adolescents and young people live in a protective environment (school, workplace, training centre and partner centre)?

Youth for change gender strategy:

• Are the interventions coherent with Youth for change gender strategy?

Relevance: the relevance of the project [the extent to which the objectives of the development action correspond to the expectations of the beneficiaries, the needs of the country, the global priorities, the policies of partners and donors];

At the programme level: To what extent do the programme objectives and intervention methodology respond to the issues of the intervention contexts and particularly the problems faced by the targeted adolescents and youth?

Actions targeting youth:

• To what extent does the programme reach the most vulnerable youth (intersectional analysis to be carried out)? What communication channels are used to inform communities, adolescents/youth about the existence of the project? Are equity measures in place (selection criteria)?
• To what extent are the socio-economic integration mechanisms adapted and do they meet the needs of young people?
• To what extent do the themes of the awareness-raising activities (adolescent clubs, film debates in Burkina Faso; student associations in the Philippines[6]) correspond to the realities encountered by young people (and more widely, parents and communities)?

Accompanying professionals:

• Does capacity building for professionals meet their expectations and needs as well as the issues perceived by the young people themselves?

Cross-cutting themes:

• Participation and engagement: Do the arrangements and modalities for youth participation and engagement in the framework of the programme meet adolescents and young people's expectations?
• Protection: Do the mechanisms and activities put in place under the programme meet the needs of adolescents and young people? More specifically, in Burkina Faso, does the modus operandi fill a gap in the child protection system in schools?
• Gender: Does the programme address gender issues in the different contexts of intervention?
• Internal experience sharing: do the modalities of inter-country experience sharing meet the needs and expectations of Asmae teams? What are the partners' expectations and what modalities could, in phase 2, allow for greater participation of the latter?

Effectiveness: the overall effectiveness of the project [the extent to which the objectives of the development action have been or are being achieved, taking into account their relative importance].

Achievement of objectives and results:

• Did the programme achieve the results expected in phase 1? What about the programme's objectives? What factors have been facilitating or hindering?
• Are there any other unexpected results to note?
• Is the intervention methodology effective (programme logic as well as respective roles of Asmae and partners)?

Actions concerning adolescents and young people:

• Are socio-economic integration mechanisms effective for all youth (regardless of their gender, disability status, etc.) (Lebanon, Egypt, Madagascar)?
• Have mechanisms been put in place to ensure a follow-up of young people after the programme allowing a detailed analysis of the levers and obstacles to their socio-economic integration (Lebanon, Madagascar)?
• Does the peer tutoring system work and has it enabled students to improve in certain subjects (Burkina Faso)? if not, what are the obstacles?
• Has the adopted peer-to-peer approach, putting adolescents and young people at the heart of the outreach mechanism, proved effective (Burkina Faso, Philippines, Madagascar)? What are its limitations? At the same time, are awareness-raising strategies with parents and communities effective (Burkina Faso, Egypt)?
• Has the programme contributed to improving access to education and pre-training services for young people with disabilities?

Contributing to empowerment:

• To what extent does the programme contribute to the empowerment of young people?
• Multi-dimensional analysis of empowerment: which dimension has the most impact on the empowerment of young people? On which dimension is Asmae most effective? On which dimension does Asmae have the most added value?

Accompanying professionals and multi-actor collaboration:

• To what extent has capacity building of professionals improved the quality of psychosocial support, education, training and/or protection services (attitudes, practices)? Do adolescents and young people perceive these changes?
• Do the protection systems in place effectively allow for the identification and referral of adolescents and young people at risk or in danger (including on gender-based violence)? Once identified, has social support led to an improvement in the situation of adolescents (Burkina Faso)?
• Is collaboration between different stakeholders effective and efficient? What strategies have been developed to bring different sectors together to take on a holistic approach? What mechanisms have been deployed to embed good practice in the long term?
• Are networking events/meetings an effective methodology for building the capacity of stakeholders?
• Are the partners' technical and organisational capacity building strategies effective?

Cross-cutting themes:

• Participation: How is the participation of all youth promoted? Do the modalities and arrangements for youth participation and engagement envisaged by the programme allow for effective, inclusive and safe youth participation? Is the support for adolescents and young people to enable them to participate adequate? What about capacity building for adults facilitating participation? Is youth participation accepted/encouraged by the different stakeholders (CSO partners, communities, parents, local authorities)?
• Gender: To what extent does the programme adequately address gender issues? To what extent is Youth for Change gender strategy effectively operationalised? How effective is capacity building on gender at the level of Asmae and its partners?
• Protection: To what extent is the protection policy effectively implemented?
• Internal experience sharing: To what extent do the current inter-country sharing mechanisms allow for an increase in team skills?

2.4 Approach and Methodology: 

It is essential that the evaluation is carried out in a participatory way, involving:

• The adolescents and young people targeted by the programme, ideally in single-sex groups (including young people from gender minorities - particularly in the Philippines), and their families
• CSO and institutional partners
• The Asmae teams
• Any other relevant stakeholder (AFD, other institutional donor(s), peer NGOs, etc.)

The choice of methodology is to be refined on the basis of exchanges between Asmae and the selected consultants: at a minimum, a qualitative approach will be implemented through interviews, focus group discussions and observation of activities.

A qualitative and quantitative mixed approach will be an added value. Indeed, a quantitative methodology, in particular on the results and changes at the level of young people, could be envisaged. This is part of a wider approach launched by Asmae on Youth for Change in terms of improving monitoring and in particular the tools to better measure the effects of the programme in terms of young people's empowerment and to allow for a harmonised measurement of the programme's indicators. Thus, it is planned that a macro-level indicator be developed to better reflect the contributions of the programme to the empowerment of young people involved and accompanied through Youth for Change (by April 2023). This macro indicator could be measured as part of the final evaluation and require a quantitative methodology. This will be discussed again before and during the scoping workshop. Nevertheless, the tenders submitted (methodology, team composition) will be assessed in particular from this perspective (capacity to implement a mixed methodology).

In any case, the proposed methodology should allow for triangulation of data.

The consultancy will integrate several steps:

• A literature review, initial discussions, draft scoping report
• A scoping workshop
• Finalisation of the scoping report (finalisation of the methodology and tools, including an evaluation toolkit)
• Data collection in the field. It is hoped that all countries will be covered by the data collection (with 2 to 3 field missions by international consultant(s)). Nevertheless, different modalities can be envisaged: in addition to the international missions, complementary data collection should be envisaged in conjunction with national consultants (part of the proposed team). In addition, some Asmae country offices (Philippines, Lebanon) can support the data collection of the consultants.
• On-the-spot feedback workshops at country level
• A feedback workshop, once the final report has been validated, bringing together all of Asmae's offices, certain partners and AFD.

The consultancy will respect the following key principles:

The evaluation must respect the rights of the interviewees by guaranteeing their confidentiality and security. The consultants agree to read, understand and sign Asmae's child protection policy, which they will be expected to comply with. The evaluation report is the property of Asmae, which decides on its use.

The consultants are subject to an obligation of confidentiality concerning all information and documents of which they could have knowledge in the exercise of their mission. The consultants shall protect the information gathered and shall not use it to gain any benefit whatsoever.

2.5 Deliverables: 

The expected deliverables are:

Provisional (pre-workshop) and final (post-workshop) scoping report, which will include a contextual section (elements relating to the programme evaluated and initial findings based on the literature review), the definition of a methodology, the data collection plan and related tools, as well as a detailed updated provisional timetable.

• Interim (before review during the Steering Committee) and final evaluation report, including:

  • an executive summary at the beginning of the report (max. 10 pages)
  • a section on the methodology applied
  • a section presenting the data collected and the analysis (findings and lessons learned), including cross-cutting issues of participation and gender
  • a section on recommendations
  • annexes with country sheets (max. 2 pages per country) summarising the findings and recommendations per country

• PPT presentations for each of the workshops (on-the-spot with every country and later on with all the countries together and other stakeholders)

All documents must be submitted in both working languages - French and English.

3. Implementation Modalities:

3.1 Timetable: 

The proposed timetable for the consultancy is as follows:

Steps - Deadline (Dates are flexible and will be discussed further)

• Application process - Mid-February to mid-March 2023
• Selection of consultants - Mid-March
• Setting up the contract - 3rd week of March
• Interim scoping report - 1 week before the workshop
• Scoping workshop - Mid-April
• Final scoping report - End of April
• Field missions (with on-the-spot debriefing / ppt) - May-June-July
• Interim report - 20 August
• Final report - Mid-September
• Sharing workshops - End of September

This proposal takes into account several constraints and deadlines, namely:

• The wish to obtain the conclusions of the evaluation of phase 1 upstream (3rd quarter 2023) in order to be able to integrate the recommendations in the elaboration of phase 2 for which a complete proposal will be submitted to AFD in November.
• Country-specific contexts such as religious holidays (e.g. Ramadan from 23 March to the end of April, Eid el Adha in the last week of June, etc.) or the school calendar (e.g. the month of May is advised for Burkina Faso, Egypt and the Philippines).
• Consultancy on the harmonisation of monitoring and evaluation tools for the Youth for Change programme (main period of review of indicators and work on tools from January to April 2023).

3.2 Budget: 

The budget for the consultancy will be a maximum of €42,000 including all taxes. This includes professional fees for the consultants as well as costs related to field missions - minimum 2 (international transport costs, visa fees, per diem and local in-country transport) as well as costs related to the consultants’ visits to Asmae head office (transport, per diem).

3.3 Steering and Role of Asmae: 

The consultancy will be monitored by an ad hoc steering committee (SC) composed of the following persons

Asmae Head Office: the Expertise and Multi-country Programmes Manager and the Education/Child Protection Technical Advisor

Asmae Country Offices: one representative per country (project officer, technical advisor, project partnership manager, quality manager or monitoring and evaluation staff) will be invited to participate in the committee. For logistical reasons, it is possible that only some of the 5 countries of intervention will be represented.

The French Agency for Development (“Agence Française de Développement”) may also be represented on the steering committee if it so wishes, or associated with the validation of the main deliverables (evaluation report).

The Programme Managers (Africa, Asia-Middle East) will also be involved in the key stages of the evaluation process - in particular in the validation of deliverables and possibly in exchanges (interviews, feedback) or document sharing.

The SC, coordinated and facilitated by the Head of Expertise and Multi-country Programmes, will be responsible for the following tasks

• Selection of consultants
• Transmission of programme documents
• Participation in the scoping workshop
• Review of the scoping report
• Inputs, contributions and feedback in the various stages of drafting the interim and final report
• Participation in the final presentation

During field missions, Asmae teams (country offices) will ensure:

• Coordination and logistical preparation of the evaluation with the various project stakeholders
• Accompanying the consultants on visits, observations and interviews (facilitating logistics, interpreting if necessary - ideally the consultants will be fluent in the languages spoken by the target groups)
• The organisation (logistics) of evaluation activities (FGDs, interviews, observations, etc.) and feedback workshops involving partners and young people's representatives, if any

In addition, the field offices will be responsible for providing a final feedback later on to the partners and the adolescents and young people involved in the programme.

Finally, Asmae will also be responsible for the dissemination of the final report, the synthesis or articles summarising the main lessons learned and recommendations, to a wide audience (in-country partners, donors, etc.) in order to ensure transparency, accountability and learning.

4. Response to the Call for Tenders: 

4.1 Profile of Consultants: 

The evaluation will preferably be carried out by a team comprising (one) international consultant(s) with strong evaluation experience, relevant thematic and geographical experience and collaborating with national consultants. If possible, the team of consultants will demonstrate some parity to allow, in some cases, for data collection to take place in a single gender group. The participation of (one) international consultant(s) will ensure consistency in the process, both in terms of methodology (protocol and tools) and analysis.

The required experience and qualifications of the consultants are:

• Expertise on issues of training-vocational integration, empowerment of young people, support for adolescence and/or protection
• A good command of cross-cutting approaches (CRBA, gender and participation)
• Solid experience in the field of evaluation.
• Experience of working in partnership with local organisations and/or in the field of capacity building and CSO support.
• Experience in coordinating and conducting complex studies (international consultants)
• Excellent command of English and French. It is specified that the deliverables will be written in both languages.
• Knowledge of the countries concerned is an added value.

[1] Percentage of young people aged 10-19: Burkina (24%), Madagascar (23%), Philippines (20%), Egypt (18%), Lebanon (17%). UNICEF report, The State of the World's Children 2019, pp. 244-245. https://www.unicef.org/media/63016/file/SOWC-2019.pdf

[2] Logical framework in annex

[3] https://www.afd.fr/sites/afd/files/2022-11-02-40-33/guide-methodologique-initiatives-novembre-2022.pdf (in French only) ; Methodology guide for local CSOs, including the aforementioned toolkits, available in English via the following link : https://www.afd.fr/sites/afd/files/2023-01-09-34-30/guides-and-appendix-local-cso-en.zip

[4] https://www.oecd.org/fr/cad/evaluation/criteres-cad-evaluation.htm

[5] Gender-reponsive basic education policy of the Department of Education

[6] Supreme Student Governments

How to Apply: 

Interested consultants should submit:

A technical offer including:

• A submission letter
• A note on understanding and commenting on the terms of reference, presentation of the methodology used (details on the quali/quanti approach, refined evaluative questions, proposed prioritisation, etc.) and the added value of the different consultants within the team, the distribution of roles and responsibilities within the team and the coordination arrangements (10 pages maximum)
• Relevant experience and references of the consultants (10 pages maximum)
• Two recent evaluation reports (if possible one in French and one in English) in a similar thematic and geographical scope of the current evaluation

A financial offer including:

• the overall budget (before and after tax)
• detailed prices (fees, daily allowances, transport costs, etc.)
• the desired payment terms
• The financial offer should take into account all costs related to the field data collection

Bids may be submitted in English or French.

Tenders will be evaluated by a committee on the basis of their compliance with the terms of reference, using the following evaluation criteria

• Understanding of the TOR and proposed methodology
• Qualification, experience, coherence, added value of the proposed team and capacity to cover the 5 countries
• Other criteria: quality of copies of evaluation reports submitted and references of consultants
• Financial proposal

If you wish to express your interest in this call for tenders, please submit your proposal by e-mail to pole-ai@asmae.fr before 17 March 2023, 6pm Paris time (GMT+1).