Log In
Sign Up
1. Introduction and Background
The Response to Education and Protection Needs (REAP) Project is a USD 1,500,000, 2-year-3-month initiative (01 Oct 2024–31 December 2026) funded by Save the Children Italy (SC Italy) and implemented by Save the Children in Dadaab Sub-County, Garissa County, Kenya. The project’s full award title is “Providing equitable, uninterrupted access to resilient, equitable, protective, inclusive, innovative quality education in emergencies and child protection services for children affected by crisis in Dadaab refugee camp by 2026.” REAP is implemented across the Ifo Main, Dagahaley, and Ifo2 refugee camps and their surrounding host communities, targeting 25,000 direct beneficiaries (80% refugees and 20% host-community children) and an estimated 40,000 indirect beneficiaries.
REAP responds to a context in which more than 42% of school-aged children (aged 4–17 years) in Dadaab are out of school, compounded by a fresh influx of asylum seekers fleeing drought and conflict in Somalia (nearly 80,000 new arrivals recorded by UNHCR), overcrowding of camps and informal settlements, and constrained protection, WASH, and livelihood systems. The project pursues two results: Result 1: refugee and affected local community boys and girls have access to quality basic education; and Result 2: refugee children are protected from violence, abuse, and exploitation and have access to suitable care arrangements. These results are delivered through five interlinked outcomes:
Outcome 1: Improved literacy and numeracy amongst children affected by the crisis in the Dadaab refugee camp and host communities.
Outcome 2: Increased access to safe, climate-resilient, inclusive, and quality learning environments.
Outcome 3: Strengthened monitoring, reporting, and coordination mechanisms for Education in Emergencies (EiE) and Child Protection.
Outcome 4: Fostered resilience and sustainable livelihood outcomes among adolescent mothers and foster parents to withstand shocks and stresses.
Outcome 5: Scaled-up capacity of local authority and community structures to prevent, respond to and foster a safe and protective environment for children.
REAP is delivered through a localization model in which Save the Children provides overall technical, operational, and financial oversight, while two local partners lead specific components: RRDO leads construction/renovation of climate-resilient school and WASH infrastructure, water-source rehabilitation, and greening activities under Outcome 2, and Somali Lifeline Organization (SOLO) leads the livelihoods and resilience component for adolescent mothers and foster parents under Outcome 4, including Output 4.1. At least 27% of the project’s flexible funding is channeled directly to local partners through a participatory budgeting process.
Purpose of this document. This Terms of Reference (ToR) sets out the objectives, scope, evaluation questions, methodology, and management arrangements for an independent, third-party endline evaluation of REAP, with a specific and primary focus on Outcome 4 / Output 4.1. It is intended to guide an external evaluation consultant/firm in developing a technical and financial proposal and subsequently in designing and delivering the evaluation.
2. Results Framework and Focus of the Evaluation: Output 4.1
This endline evaluation is focused specifically on Outcome 4 and its associated output, Output 4.1, which addresses the socio-economic resilience of adolescent mothers and foster parents, one of the most vulnerable groups within the REAP target population given their exposure to poverty, unstable livelihoods, and heightened protection risks such as child marriage, sexual exploitation, and abuse.
2.1 Results chain and indicators
Outcome 4: Foster resilience and sustainable livelihood outcomes among adolescent mothers and foster parents to withstand shock and stress.
Indicator 4.1: % of adolescent mothers and foster parents with improved social and economic ability to meet their essential needs in a sustainable manner (increased income, food consumption, reduced coping strategies). MoVs: Evaluation reports, stakeholder feedback, and policy documents.
Output 4.1: Increased participation of adolescent mothers and foster parents in viable and environmentally sustainable enterprises.
Indicator 4.1.1: % of adolescent mothers and foster parents with an Acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS).
Indicator 4.1.2: % of adolescent girls and foster mothers trained in life skills and entrepreneurship who demonstrate improved life skills and capacity for protection.
Indicator 4.1.3: % of adolescent mothers and foster parents who report being able to meet the basic needs of their households (all/most/some/none) as a consequence of income generated by their business. MoVs: PDM reports; baseline and endline survey, participant lists and cash-disbursement receipts, CPIMS+, and psychometric tool.
2.2 Key activities under Output 4.1 (led by SOLO)
Conduct a labor market assessment on relevant self-reliance skills for the targeted households.
Conduct a market assessment on livelihood opportunities and value chains relevant to refugee and host communities.
Provide skills training to identified groups of adolescent mothers and foster parents based on assessment findings.
Provide start-up kits to trained groups.
Monitor, coach, and market products, including through market fairs and digital marketing.
Support groups to register with statutory and regulatory bodies for quality inspection of products.
Produce visibility materials (T-shirts, caps, banners/roll-ups).
In addition, a biannual tracer study follows program me graduates to track their socio-economic status, employment/self-employment, income, skills development, and job tenure over time.
2.3 Baseline situation (Outcome 4)
A baseline survey for Outcome 4 was conducted among 150 host-only-community households (adolescent mothers, foster-parent households, and caregivers of persons with disabilities) in Dadaab Sub-County, using a census approach and structured KoboCollect questionnaires. Key findings included:
82% of female respondents’ households were female-headed, with an overall household dependency ratio of 65:35 (dependents: working-age members).
Heavy reliance on casual labor (31%) and remittances (29%) rather than diversified or stable livelihoods; only 9% relied on small business income.
Only 18% of households owned a business, despite 99% having received business-skills training and 96% having received training on business-plan development—a pronounced “knowledge-to-practice gap.”
Only 35% of households had an Acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS); 66% were borderline or poor, and negative coping strategies (reliance on less-preferred foods, borrowing food, reducing meal portions/frequency) were widespread.
53% of households could meet only “some” of their basic needs; only 33% and 28% could meet “most” of their health and education needs, respectively.
Moderate but not full participation, public-speaking confidence, protection-reporting awareness, record-keeping, and help-seeking capacities, with women consistently more concentrated in “mostly able” and “able with support” categories than in “fully able.”
Important methodological note. The baseline covered host-community respondents only and did not include refugee households, even though refugees constitute 80% of REAP’s overall target population. The endline evaluation must generate comparable data for both host-community and refugee participants and explicitly address this baseline coverage gap in its design (see Section 7.2).
3. Purpose and Rationale of the Endline Evaluation
As REAP approaches the end of its award period (31 December 2026), SOLO wishes to commission an independent, third-party endline evaluation to assess the extent to which Output 4.1 has achieved its intended results; generate credible, disaggregated evidence on outcomes for adolescent mothers and foster parents in both refugee and host communities; and produce actionable, evidence-based recommendations and a policy brief to inform current donor reporting and the design of future livelihoods and resilience programming in Dadaab and similar refugee-hosting nexus contexts. The evaluation will fulfill accountability requirements to the donor (SC Italy) and other stakeholders and support organizational learning within Save the Children, SOLO, and RRDO.
4. Objectives of the Evaluation
4.1 Overall objective
To independently assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of Output 4.1 of the REAP project and the extent to which gender equality, social inclusion, safeguarding, and child protection were integrated into its design and delivery in order to generate evidence and recommendations for donor reporting, organizational learning and future programming.
Specific objectives
Assess progress against the Output 4.1 and Outcome 4 indicators relative to baseline values and end-of-project targets, disaggregated by sex, disability, location (camp/host), and refugee/host status.
Assess the relevance and coherence of the livelihoods and resilience strategy (labor-market and value-chain assessments, skills training, start-up kits, mentorship, and market linkage) to the needs of adolescent mothers and foster parents and to the wider REAP and Dadaab programming landscape.
Determine the effectiveness and efficiency of Output 4.1 delivery, including the extent to which the “knowledge-to-practice” gap identified at baseline has narrowed.
Examine the broader impact of Output 4.1 on household resilience, food security, and protection outcomes for adolescent mothers, foster parents, and their children.
Assess the sustainability of enterprises, market linkages, and local-partner (SOLO) capacity beyond project end.
Assess the extent to which gender equality, disability and social inclusion, safeguarding and child protection were mainstreamed in the design, delivery and monitoring of Output 4.1.
Document lessons learned and good practices, and provide specific, actionable recommendations for future livelihoods and resilience programming for adolescent mothers and foster parents.
5. Scope of the Evaluation
Geographic scope
Ifo Main, Dagahaley and Ifo 2 refugee camps and host community villages of Dadaab Sub-County, Garissa County.
Population scope
Adolescent mothers, foster parents, and, in line with the baseline’s inclusion criteria, caregivers of persons with disabilities, drawn from both refugee and host-community populations; and other Output 4.1 stakeholders, including SOLO, Save the Children, and RRDO staff, the Ministry of Education, the Directorate of Children Services, camp leadership and coordination structures (CWG, CPWG), market actors/traders, and, where feasible, financial service or micro-finance providers.
Temporal scope
The full award period (01 Oct 2024–31 December 2026), using the Outcome 4 baseline (host community) as the primary quantitative comparator where available, and routine project monitoring data (assessments, tracer study) as supplementary comparators, particularly for the refugee cohort not covered at baseline.
Thematic scope
Primary focus on Output 4.1 and Outcome 4. Secondary attention to interlinkages with outcomes 1, 3, and 5, where these affect, or are affected by, household livelihoods; for example, school (re-)enrolment of adolescent mothers, linkage with child-protection case management, and community structures supporting vulnerable households.
6. Evaluation Criteria and Key Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will apply the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria, including relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiencyimpact,ct and sustainability, together with dedicated cross-cutting criteria on gender equality and social inclusion and on safeguarding and child protection, given their centrality to REAP’s target population. The illustrative questions below will be refined and finalized with the selected consultant during the inception phase and reflected in a detailed evaluation matrix.
6.1 Relevance
The extent to which Output 4.1’s design and objectives responded to the needs, priorities, and capacities of adolescent mothers and foster parents and remained appropriate as the context evolved.
To what extent were the livelihood and resilience interventions under Output 4.1 (skills training, start-up kits, mentorship, market linkage) relevant to the needs and vulnerabilities of adolescent mothers and foster parents identified at baseline (e.g., high dependency ratios, reliance on casual labor/remittances, low food consumption scores)?
How relevant was the sequencing of activities: labor-market assessment, value-chain assessment, skills training, start-up kits, then mentorship/marketing to closing the “knowledge-to-practice” gap identified at baseline (99% trained vs. only 18% owning a business)?
To what extent did targeting criteria appropriately reach the most vulnerable adolescent mothers and foster parents (e.g., female-headed households, households with disability, poor/borderline FCS households), as recommended in the baseline report?
How relevant were the enterprise sectors/value chains identified through the two labor-market/value-chain assessments to actual market opportunities and to participants’ skills, literacy levels, and aspirations?
Was framing Output 4.1 around “viable and environmentally sustainable enterprises” appropriate given the Dadaab context of climate stress, resource scarcity, and market constraints?
6.2 Coherence
How well Output 4.1 fits with other parts of REAP and with the wider institutional and policy context in Dadaab.
How well did Output 4.1 interventions align and integrate with other REAP outcomes/outputs for the same households? For example, linkage between economic empowerment and re-enrolment in education or with child-protection case management under Outcome 5?
To what extent did the project complement, duplicate, or create synergies with other actors’ livelihoods/self-reliance programming in Dadaab (e.g., UNHCR self-reliance initiatives, the Shirika Plan, and other NGOs’ livelihood work)?
How well did Save the Children, SOLO, and RRDO coordinate roles, responsibilities, and information-sharing in delivering Output 4.1, and how did this affect coherence of delivery?
To what extent was Output 4.1 aligned with national and county policy frameworks relevant to refugee self-reliance and integration (e.g., the Shirika Plan, county MSME/youth livelihood strategies)?
6.3 Effectiveness
The extent to which Output 4.1’s outputs and outcome-level results have been achieved.
To what extent has the project achieved its Output 4.1 targets, e.g., proportion of adolescent mothers and foster parents actively participating in viable and environmentally sustainable enterprises, proportion with an acceptable FCS, proportion demonstrating improved life skills and protection capacity, and proportion able to meet household basic needs from business income?
Compared with baseline (18% business ownership; 35% acceptable FCS; only 47% of households able to meet most basic needs), what change is evident at endline, and to what extent can this change be plausibly linked to REAP/Output 4.1 interventions?
How effective were the labor-market assessment and value-chain analysis in informing the selection of skills training and enterprise types, and did this translate into higher rates of active, sustained enterprise operation than the 18% baseline?
To what extent did start-up kits, mentorship/coaching, market-fair participation, digital marketing, and regulatory registration support translate training into actual, sustained business practice (record-keeping, saving, reinvestment, and market awareness)?
What factors (enablers and barriers) explain variation in effectiveness between refugee and host-community participants and between female- and male-headed households?
How effective were Output 4.1 monitoring systems (post-distribution monitoring, KAP pre/post assessments, and the tracer study) in tracking results and informing adaptive management?
6.4 Efficiency
Whether Output 4.1 resources were converted into results in a timely, cost-effective way.
Were Output 4.1 resources (financial, human, and SOLO’s partner capacity) used efficiently to deliver planned activities and outputs within the USD 1.5 million total award and the project timeframe?
How efficient was the localization model? 27% of flexible funding was channeled directly to local partners through participatory budgeting in delivering timely, quality livelihood support at the community level through SOLO?
Were there delays (e.g., in completing the labor-market/value-chain assessments, disbursing start-up kits, or rolling out training) that affected the cost-efficiency or timeliness of Output 4.1, and what caused them?
How does the cost per beneficiary reached under Output 4.1 compare with similar livelihoods/self-reliance programmes in comparable refugee-hosting contexts, where data allow such benchmarking?
6.5 Impact
The broader and longer-term effects, positive or negative, intended or unintended, that Output 4.1 has contributed to.
What evidence exists of broader or longer-term change in the economic and social resilience of adolescent mothers, foster parents, and their households; income, food consumption, reduced negative coping strategies, and reduced dependency as a result of Output 4.1?
To what extent has increased economic empowerment of adolescent mothers and foster parents contributed to Outcome 4 overall and to protection outcomes under Outcome 5, such as reduced violence, exploitation,and abuse of their children?
Are there unintended positive or negative effects of the livelihood’s intervention, for example, on intra-household relations and decision-making, on relations between refugee and host-community beneficiaries given differentiated targeting, or on local environmental resources?
Is there any observable association between household economic improvement and the education access, retention, or protection outcomes of the children of participating adolescent mothers and foster parents?
6.6 Sustainability
The likelihood that benefits from Output 4.1 will continue after REAP ends in December 2026.
To what extent are enterprises established under Output 4.1 likely to continue generating income and to withstand shocks after the project ends?
How likely are the market linkages, mentorship/coaching structures, and registration with statutory/regulatory bodies to be sustained without continued SOLO/REAP support?
To what extent have savings, reinvestment, and record-keeping practices, identified as weak at baseline (only 65% would save; 70% would keep records), improved and become embedded, self-sustaining practices?
What exit/handover strategy exists for Output 4.1, and how prepared are local structures (community groups, local authorities, market actors, and financial-service providers) to sustain gains?
To what extent has the project strengthened SOLO’s own institutional capacity to continue supporting livelihoods programming for adolescent mothers and foster parents beyond REAP?
6.7 Gender Equality and Social Inclusion
The extent to which Output 4.1 addressed gendered and inclusion-related barriers and delivered equitable benefits.
To what extent did Output 4.1 respond to the gendered vulnerabilities identified at baseline; 82% female-headed households, women’s concentration in remittances and farming versus men’s in casual labour and small business, and women’s lower confidence in business ownership?
Did women, including adolescent mothers, experience equal access to, and benefit equally from, skills training, start-up kits, mentorship, and market-linkage support compared with men and foster fathers?
How did the project address barriers specific to adolescent mothers—stigma, childcare burden, mobility restrictions, and early-marriage risk—in accessing and sustaining livelihood activities?
Were persons with disabilities and their caregiving households (part of the baseline target group) adequately included, with reasonable accommodations made in training, start-up kit provision, and marketing support?
Is there evidence of change in participants’ agency and decision-making power, household decision-making, confidence in public speaking, help-seeking, and relative to baseline, and can this change be attributed to Output 4.1?
Were refugee and host-community participants treated equitably in targeting, resource allocation, and quality of support, consistent with the project’s 80/20 target ratio?
6.8 Safeguarding and Child Protection
The extent to which Output 4.1 upheld safeguarding and child-protection standards for a population that includes minors and other vulnerable individuals.
Were adequate child-safeguarding and PSEA (Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse) safeguards in place and adhered to throughout the design and delivery of Output 4.1, given that some adolescent mothers are minors and that beneficiary households are highly vulnerable?
How were safeguarding risks specific to livelihoods programming e.g., start-up-kit distribution, market fairs, mentorship relationships, digital marketing exposure identified, mitigated and monitored?
To what extent were beneficiaries, including adolescent mothers, aware of, and able to safely and confidentially access, complaint and feedback/reporting mechanisms (CFRM) related to safeguarding concerns?
Were any safeguarding incidents or concerns relating to Output 4.1 activities reported? How were they handled, and what lessons can be drawn (reviewed with due confidentiality and in line with ethical reporting standards)?
How well did Output 4.1 interventions link with REAP’s broader child-protection case management and referral pathway (CPIMS+, community structures) for the children of adolescent mothers and foster families, particularly regarding child labor, child marriage, and other poverty-linked protection risks?
Did the evaluation process itself apply appropriate ethical and child-safeguarding protocols when engaging adolescent mothers, some of whom are minors (informed consent/assent, safe interview settings, referral pathways)?
7. Evaluation Methodology
7.1 Overall approach
The evaluation will use a mixed-methods, participatory, gender-responsive and do-no-harm approach and will be theory-based; explicitly testing the Output 4.1 results chain (assessments → skills training → start-up assets → mentorship and market linkage → enterprise participation → income, food consumption and protection capacity → household resilience). The final methodology will be agreed with SOLO and Save the Children at inception.
7.2 Evaluation design
For host-community respondents, the evaluation will apply a before–after comparison against the 150-household Outcome 4 baseline, using comparable indicators and, where feasible, tools. Because the baseline did not cover refugee households, despite refugees representing 80% of REAP’s target population, the consultant will propose and agree with SOLO and Save the Children at Inception the appropriate approach for this cohort. Options to be considered include retrospective/recall-based baseline questions embedded in the endline survey; use of routine monitoring, post-distribution monitoring, and tracer-study data as a proxy baseline; or comparison against a suitable non-participant or later-cohort comparison group. Whichever approach is chosen, the evaluation must produce credible, defensible evidence of change (or contribution to change) for both refugee and host-community participants.
7.3 Data collection methods
Desk review of: the REAP proposal and log frame; the Outcome 4 baseline report; quarterly/annual progress reports; the bi-annual tracer study report(s); the two labour-market/value-chain assessment reports (Activities 4.1.1 and 4.1.2); monitoring reports (post-distribution monitoring, KAP pre/post assessments, data quality audits, IPTT indicator tracking); relevant safeguarding/CFRM summary data (aggregated and redacted, subject to confidentiality); and secondary sources such as UNHCR/Shirika Plan documentation.
A quantitative household survey that replicates, with necessary adaptation, the baseline tool’s core modules (household demographics, income sources, ability to meet basic needs, food consumption score, negative coping strategies, participation/confidence scales, business ownership and practices), administered to a representative sample of both host-community and refugee-camp participants.
Key informant interviews (KIIs) with Save the Children, SOLO and RRDO programme and technical staff; the Ministry of Education and Directorate of Children Services; camp leadership and coordination structures (EiE/CP working groups); market actors; and, where feasible, financial-service or micro-finance providers.
Focus group discussions (FGDs) with adolescent mothers and foster parents, disaggregated by refugee/host status, sex, and disability where feasible, and held separately from mixed community groups to protect confidentiality.
Case studies or “most significant change” stories to capture the depth and texture of household-level change.
Direct observation of a sample of supported enterprises/business sites.
7.4 Sampling
The consultant will propose a statistically robust sampling strategy (stating confidence level and margin of error) covering both refugee and host-community participants, disaggregated by sex, disability status, and location, and stratified to allow direct comparison with the 150-household baseline sample. The final sample size, stratification, and selection method will be agreed upon with SOLO during the inception phase.
7.5 Data quality, management, and analysis
Data will be triangulated across sources and methods and analyzed against baseline values, output/outcome targets, and the findings of the two labor-market/value-chain assessment reports (to assess market fit). All quantitative data will be disaggregated by sex, disability, age (including minors), and refugee/host status, with a dedicated gender and inclusion analysis. Data collection should use a digital platform with real-time validation (e.g., KoboCollect, as used at baseline) and follow data-protection-compliant storage and anonymization procedures. A clean, anonymized, well-documented dataset will be handed over to SOLO and Save the Children on completion.
7.6 Ethics and safeguarding in data collection
Mandatory child-safeguarding and PSEA clearance for all evaluation team members and enumerators, including signed Child Safeguarding Policy and Code of Conduct commitments prior to fieldwork.
Voluntary, informed consent for all adult respondents and informed consent/assent protocols for any respondent under 18 years; relevant given that some adolescent mothers may be minors.
Confidential, secure, and gender-appropriate data collection (e.g., female enumerators for female respondents, private interview settings), with strict confidentiality and data protection for all personal information.
Do-no-harm and trauma-informed interview techniques, with children never used as interviewers or enumerators.
A clear, pre-agreed protocol for referring any safeguarding disclosure or protection concern arising during data collection toSOLO/ Save the Children’s designated safeguarding focal point and REAP’s child-protection case-management/CFRM system.
8. Deliverables and Indicative Timeline
1. Inception report—Refined methodology, evaluation matrix, sampling plan, data-collection tools, and detailed workplan. Weeks 1–2
2. Tools finalized and piloted—Data-collection tools translated as needed, piloted, and finalized, including how the baseline gap for refugee respondents will be addressed. Weeks 2–3
3. Fieldwork—Household survey, KIIs, FGDs, case studies, and site observation across camp and host-community locations. Weeks 3–5
4. Draft endline evaluation report—Full draft report against all evaluation criteria, with indicator comparison to baseline. Weeks 6–7
5. Validation/dissemination workshop—Presentation of preliminary findings to Save the Children, SOLO, RRDO and key stakeholders for feedback. Week 8
6. Final deliverables—Final report incorporating feedback, executive summary, PowerPoint of key findings, and clean anonymized dataset. Week 9
Note: timing is indicative and expressed in weeks from contract signing; exact calendar dates will be confirmed at the contracting stage*.*
Consultant Firm/Evaluation Team Profile
The evaluation will be led by an independent consultant/team of consultants or firm (with preference to firm) with the following minimum qualifications:
An advanced degree in development studies, economics, social sciences, monitoring & evaluation, or a related field.
At least seven years of demonstrated experience designing and leading evaluations of livelihoods/economic-strengthening and/or child-protection programmes, ideally in refugee or humanitarian-development nexus contexts.
Proven expertise applying OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) evaluation design.
Experience conducting gender- and child-safeguarding-sensitive data collection with vulnerable groups, including adolescent mothers and survivors of GBV/abuse.
Familiarity with the Dadaab/Kenya refugee context; the team should include enumerators fluent in Somali and other locally relevant languages.
Demonstrated commitment to gender equality and disability-inclusive evaluation practice.
Strong quantitative and qualitative analytical skills and a track record of clear, actionable report writing.
A member of the team speaking the Somali language is an added advantage.
A current, signed child-safeguarding and PSEA policy or equivalent organizational commitment, applicable to all team members and enumerators.
10. Management Arrangements
The evaluation will be commissioned and managed by the Somali Lifeline Organization (SOLO) Dadaab Field Office MEAL Unit. The consultant will report to the MEAL Coordinator and Project Manager, with technical guidance from Save the Children’s M&E, livelihoods, gender, and child-protection technical specialists, and will coordinate directly with SOLO for access to project sites, records, and beneficiaries, and with RRDO where relevant. SOLO will facilitate access to project documentation, key informants, and, where required, camp-access permissions.
11. Ethical Considerations and Safeguarding Compliance
Full adherence by all evaluation personnel to SOLO’s Child Safeguarding Policy and PSEA Policy.
Appropriate ethical/research clearance, where required by national or institutional requirements.
Voluntary, informed consent for all participants and informed consent/assent for any participant under 18 years, obtained in a manner appropriate to literacy levels and language.
Confidential, secure handling of all personal data, particularly for minors and survivors of abuse or exploitation, with no reporting of information that could identify an individual survivor without explicit, informed consent and protective measures.
A clear, pre-agreed protocol for referring any safeguarding disclosure or protection concern identified during the evaluation to Save the Children’s designated safeguarding focal point and REAP’s child-protection case-management/CFRM system.
Cultural sensitivity and gender-appropriate data collection, including same-sex enumerator-respondent pairing where appropriate given the sensitivity of topics covered.
12. Budget and Payment Schedule
The evaluation budget will be determined by the commissioning office in line with applicable procurement guidelines and included in the request for proposals. Payment is indicatively proposed as follows, subject to confirmation and contractual agreement: 20% upon signing of contract and approval of the inception report; 40% upon submission of an acceptable draft endline evaluation report; and 40% upon submission and formal acceptance of the final report, executive summary, presentation and dataset.
How to apply
Interested firms should submit: (i) a technical proposal, including proposed methodology, sampling approach, and workplan; (ii) a financial proposal/budget; (iii) CVs of all proposed team members, including language capabilities; (iv) at least two samples of comparable evaluation reports; and (v) evidence of a current child-safeguarding/PSEA policy or equivalent commitment. Proposals should be submitted to [email protected] by 21st September 2026, with a subject title, “APPLICATION FOR THE ENDLINE EVALUATION OUTPUT 4.1 REAP PROJECT.”
