Final Evaluation: Improving Inclusive Education in Machakos and Kajiado counties in Kenya Full Time NEW

Terms of Reference for Evaluation

1. Evaluation Summary

Project ID and Program/Project Name: P6664- Improving Inclusive Education in Machakos and Kajiado counties in Kenya

Name of Partner Organisation/s: GIRL CHILD NETWORK (GCN) and Agency for Disability and Development in Africa (ADDA)

Project start and end dates; phase of project if applicable: 15.11.2022 – 15.01.2026

Evaluation Purpose:
The purpose of this Evaluation is to assess the extent to which project overall goal has been achieved and to assess the overall project impact for accountability to the donor, for steering future projects and for learning.

Evaluation Type:
Final /End term project evaluation

Contracting organisation/contact person:
CBM Christoffel-Blindenmission Christian Blind Mission e.V, Contracting Contact Person: David Munyendo

Evaluation Team members (if known):
Team of competent consultants as per ToR requirements.

Primary Methodology:
Mixed Methods

Proposed Evaluation Start and End Dates:
15.12.2025-31st January 2026

Anticipated Final Evaluation Report Submission Date:
31st January 2026

Recipient of Final Evaluation Report:
CBM Christoffel-Blindenmission Christian Blind Mission e.V., BMZ and partner

2. Project Description

About the project

This project aims to create an adequate environment for Inclusive Education in schools and Educational Assessment and Resource Centres (EARCs), where necessary infrastructure and qualified personnel are available. In addition, the project creates structures for close cooperation among all stakeholders of Inclusive Education in early identification, early Intervention, referrals and enrollment of children with disabilities. The project also aims to ensure joint steering structures to enable use of synergies and joint accountability.

The Project main Goal is to improve the quality of early childhood and primary education for children with and without disabilities while its Specific objective is to ensure that 27,159 Children with and without disabilities learn together in an inclusive learning environment. The Project targeted 61 public schools and 6 EARCs in Kajiado.

The Project is founded on 3 key building blocks as follows:

• Result 1. 61 Schools and 6 EARCs are accessible and have qualified staff.
• Result 2. Local Stakeholders cooperate in identification and referring children with disabilities.
• Result 3. Stakeholders in Inclusive Education create synergies and are held accountable to their actions.

Lastly, the Project key Interventions are pegged on Early identification, support intervention, referral and placement and enrolment of Children with Disabilities, Establishment of joint steering structures to enable synergy and joint accountability among primary stakeholders, infrastructure modification, awareness raising on disability inclusion, capacity building of stakeholders and partnership and collaboration.

Target population: The direct target group consists of a total of 27,348 people from Machakos and Kajiado Counties. The focus is on the 61 selected primary schools each of which has an Early Childhood Development Centre (ECD).

Direct target group is composed as follows:

• Target Schools: Kajiado 25, Machakos 36, Total 61
• Children aged 4 to 14: Kajiado 11,131, Machakos 16,028, Total 27,159
• Teachers (3 per School): Kajiado 75, Machakos 108, Total 183
• Curriculum Support Officers of the EARCs: Kajiado 2, Machakos 4, Total 6

Indirect target group:
The indirect target group includes the members of the 61 school management councils with 13 members each (a total of 793 persons) as well as the 61 volunteer health workers of the respective Community Health Units. In addition, members of an estimated 3,096 households where children with disabilities live benefit. Through quality inclusive education, the children of the affected household are enabled to participate in social and economic life, thereby relieving the family’s burden in the long term. With an estimated household size of 5 persons per household with a child with disabilities, this amounts to 15,480 persons.

Indirectly, the project activities will reach out to the population in the target counties through awareness raising activities on inclusive education. This will lead to improved coordination and cooperation in the field of inclusive education, government actors in the education and health sectors, as well as self-help groups of people with disabilities and parent/carer groups.

3. Evaluation Objective and Intended Use

The purpose of this final evaluation of the project is to provide an assessment of the achievements under this project, especially in terms of the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability; to capture successes & challenges involved in this project and their impact on project implementation; and to create learnings for the future. The evaluation will also assess the impact on the target groups, identify areas that may need ongoing attention and provide recommendations for securing the project results in the foreseeable future.

The primary target audience of this evaluation are the implementing organizations, GCN and ADDA, as well as the donors, CBM and BMZ, who will all receive the full evaluation report. The end-term evaluation shall be designed as to have a ready, accessible and easily understandable reference that provides a review of project interventions and achievements and offers recommendations for improvement in future endeavors of the partners and beyond.

For the implementing organizations it can be used as an instrument and go-to learning document when it comes to confirm, revise, reassess or adjust in order to facilitate a successful project implementation and target as well as impact achievement in projects with a similar objective/agenda, and to secure sustainability of project results/outcomes.

For the donors the evaluation provides a stock-taking of the project’s achievements and impact, and documents adherence to funding guidelines and project plan – not the least for the sake of accountability. In addition, for CBM as the private executing agency of the co-funded BMZ project, the evaluation helps in discussing necessary adjustments to future project design and implementation with partners / implementing organizations and informs future project monitoring.

4. Scope of the evaluation

The final evaluation will cover perspectives from the project key interventions, which is not limited to Early identification, intervention, referral and enrolment of Children With Disabilities, operationalization of joint steering structures to enable synergy and joint accountability, Infrastructure accessibility and modification in 61 project schools and 6 EARCs, Awareness raising on disability inclusion in school communities, Capacity building of stakeholders on key areas of disability inclusion and advocacy by disability champions in promoting Inclusion at group level.

The evaluation will cover areas relevant to inclusive education as per the project intervention areas including but not limited to, infrastructure improvement, inclusive education, trainings, provision of materials, linkage with other services, equipment, community related activities and advocacy related activities.

It will also review planned and achieved project objective, results, activities, and indicators specified in the approved impact matrix (Logframe) and project plan (original proposal) as well as identify and elaborate relevant and useful lessons learned to be applied in future endeavours of the partners and beyond, especially regarding the approach/effectiveness of the intervention.

5. Limitations

The evaluation might be affected by the unavailability of some target beneficiaries. To address this challenge, the local implementing partners will make prior arrangements with key informants whom the evaluator/evaluation team will sample from to ensure they spare some time to attend to this important exercise.

6. Target audience and use

The primary target audience of this evaluation are the implementing organizations, ADDA and GCN, as well as the donors, CBM and BMZ, who will all receive the full evaluation report. The end-term evaluation shall be designed as to have a ready, accessible and easily understandable reference that provides a review of project interventions and achievements and offers recommendations for improvement in future endeavors of the partners and beyond.

For the implementing organizations it can be used as an instrument and go-to learning document when it comes to confirm, revise, reassess or make adjustments in order to facilitate a successful project implementation and target as well as impact achievement in projects with a similar objective/agenda, and to secure sustainability of project results/outcomes.

For the donors the evaluation provides a stock-taking of the project’s achievements and impact, and documents adherence to funding guidelines and project plan – not the least for the sake of accountability. In addition, for CBM as the private executing agency of the co-funded BMZ project, the evaluation helps in discussing necessary adjustments to future project design and implementation with partners / implementing organizations and informs future project monitoring.

The final report is expected to be shared with the implementing partner, project related Government representatives, key development partners, CBM and BMZ (donor) as well as with members of the target group such as learners with disabilities in an appropriate format per audience.

The results of this evaluation must allow the audiences to understand the achievements of the project, including its good practices for replication. It will also provide a critical view of challenges or unintended impact that can be used to enhance future project quality.

7. Evaluation Questions

As per BMZ requirements the guiding questions for the evaluation are based on the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) DAC (Development Assessment Criteria) evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Gender equality and disability inclusion and Child Safeguarding are mandatory areas of enquiry for each evaluation.

The evaluation will identify and analyze good practices and success stories for sharing and learning. It will set recommendations that will help improve future projects with a similar objective/agenda.

The evaluation will also assess aspects around the CBM Programme Quality Principles (PQF document to be provided to consultants after signing the contract). The principles include:

• Equality and Inclusion
• Gender Equity
• Safeguarding (children and vulnerable adults)
• Advocacy
• Accessibility and Universal Design.

The Consultant will be expected to develop detailed evaluation matrix that respond to the below evaluation criteria.

RELEVANCE: This measures the extent to which the project is appropriate considering the priorities and policies of the target group, partner organisation, country/region, donor, as well as local and national development priorities.

• Was the project designed in a way that responds to the needs and priorities of all participants[1] (irrespective of gender, age, disability status)?
• To what extent does/did the project design reflect the rights of children with disabilities and other marginalised groups and include feedback from a diverse range of local stakeholders?

COHERENCE – How well does/did the project/programme fit in the broader national and international context?

• To what extent are the project’s design, delivery and results coherent with international laws and commitments to disability rights, gender equality and rights, including the CRPD[2], CEDAW[3], and the 2030 Agenda?
• To what extent does the intervention support national legislation and initiatives that aim to improve equality and equitable access in inclusive education?
• Was the results framework informed by analysis of inclusion, gender equality, political economy analysis and human rights?

EFFECTIVENESS – Is the project/programme achieving its objectives?

• In how far did the project achieve its objectives and expected results in ways that contribute to inclusion and equality across groups, such as persons with and without disabilities or women/girls and men/boys? Were different approaches used to reach the different groups? If so, did those different approaches contribute to the effectiveness of the project?
• Was the intervention adjusted to address any concerns and maximise effectiveness?

EFFICIENCY – How well have resources been planned and used?

• To what extent did the intervention deliver results in a cost effective and timely way.
• Were different resources allocated in ways that considered inclusion and equality?
• Was differential resource allocation appropriate and adequate?

IMPACT – What difference did the project make?

• To what extent did the intervention generate or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
• Were there equal impacts for different groups of people? If not, why did these differential impacts occur?
• How did norms relate to disability or gender and barriers to education within the wider political, economic, religious, legislative and socio-cultural environment impact outcomes?
• To what extent has the project lead to an impact on power relations between different groups of people and to changing of social norms and systems?

SUSTAINABILITY – Will the benefits last?

• To what extent will the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue? Includes an examination of the financial, economic, social, environmental and institutional capacities of the systems needed to sustain net benefits over time.
• To what extend did the interventions contribute to greater inclusion and equality within wider legal, political, economic and social systems?
• Did it result in enduring positive changes to social norms that are harmful to any specific group of people? Will the achievements in inclusion and equality persist after the conclusion of the intervention?
• Have processes contributed to sustaining these benefits? Have mechanisms been set up to support the achievement of inclusion and equality in the longer term?

SAFEGUARDING OF CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE ADULTS

• To what extent were safeguarding aspects considered and how were the respective mechanisms established, used and adhered to during project implementation?
• Were there any challenges encountered of safeguarding nature and what mitigation mechanism were put in place?

EQUALITY AND INCLUSION/GENDER EQUITY

• How did the project ensure that women and men, girls and boys, and persons with and without disabilities were actively involved during all steps in the project cycle and how did the groups benefit from the intervention. Was there evidence that Output and outcome data was disaggregated according to gender, age (adults/children) and disability status.
• How was disability data collected? Did the partner use Washington Group Short Set of Questions? if no what were the challenges? If so, how was the data used? If not, what were the other alternatives to data collection to ensure data disaggregation by disabilities.

CONTRIBUTION TO CHANGE (IMPACT)

• What are the positive and negative consequences of the project activities, including direct, indirect, intended, and unintended effects?
• To what extent have the overarching developmental goals and structural formations been achieved?

8.Methodology

The consultant/evaluation team will formulate a comprehensive evaluation plan and methodology aligned with the TORs. In close collaboration with local partners and CBM, the team will define the detailed approach, including scope and geographical coverage for Kajiado and Machakos Counties. The evaluation will draw on a review of partner-provided documentation and a range of stakeholder engagement activities involving project staff and target groups. The consultant is responsible for designing an evaluation process that is responsive of the Kajiado and Machakos County context. A combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques will be used to meet the objective of this evaluation, among others this may include:

• Document review
• On Site Visual Inspection
• Sample surveys
• Interviews
• Focus Group Discussions
• Most Significant Change

However, during the entire process the below mandatory approaches must be adhered to:

• Participatory and inclusive
• Adherent to research ethics with particular attention to researching the experiences and views of children with disabilities.
• Adopt a triangulated approach in both the methods of data collection and the sources of information.
• Seek to adopt possible methods of validating the gathered data.
• Safeguarding of children and adults at risk
• Data disaggregation (gender/age/disability)
• Data security and privacy (informed consent)

A detailed methodology shall be provided as part of the inception report and discussed before adoption. In consultation with the implementing partner, the persons and groups to be interviewed or consulted during the evaluation shall be provided.

The Consultant will be expected to indicate how the evaluation shall involve female and male adults and children with disabilities and their families that are affected by the project, and necessary accommodations in the methodology (sign language, accessible venues, additional time).

In addition, the consultant is expected to specify how project participants shall be identified, included in the data collection and analysis, in the formulation of recommendations. It is expected that the findings and recommendations be fed back to them thus the consultant will have to detail specific meetings, discussions, workshops, presentations.

9.Management Responsibilities and Evaluation Team

Commissioning responsibility

The Country Director will be responsible for contracting while the contract will be made with CBM Country Office Kenya. CBM is further in charge of overall management of this evaluation and will be involved in the review and approval of the methodology and final deliverables

Logistical Support and Coordination
The Consultant will be responsible for providing all logistical support to the evaluation team, including arrangements for accommodation, meals, and related needs. The Implementing Partner will assist the Consultant in scheduling interviews and organizing venues that allow access for all. Where necessary, the Implementing Partner will coordinate with CBM to identify and engage sign language interpreters or other accessibility support services as appropriate.

All logistics-related expenses shall be covered by the Consultant and included in the consultancy fee. The Consultant is required to ensure that proper documentation is maintained for all expenditures incurred in relation to the assignment.

Evaluation Team

The evaluation team will be responsible to carry out the evaluation as stipulated in the ToR and based on the contract signed. The consultant must ensure that the team is well coordinated, works towards high quality and achievement within the given time frame. The team must work according to ethical standards and all team members; incl. enumerators have to sign the CBM Code of Conduct and Safeguarding Policy and relevant partner policies.

Requirements for the team:

• Relevant Academic qualification e.g. Social Sciences, Public Health & Economics
• Designing and conducting end-term or impact evaluations for multi-sectoral development projects.
• Working knowledge of Disability inclusive programs involving people with disabilities, rehabilitation services, and inclusive education.
• Proven experience in mixed-methods evaluation (quantitative and qualitative), such as Household surveys, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
• Familiarity with rights-based and inclusive development approaches, especially disability inclusion
• Competence in data analysis tools (SPSS, STATA, NVivo, or similar).
• Ability to produce high-quality evaluation reports with actionable recommendations.
• Excellent communication and facilitation skills for engaging diverse stakeholders (government, NGOs, communities).

Child Safeguarding Policy: As a condition of entering into a consultancy agreement the evaluators must sign the CBM/partners’ Child Safeguarding Policy and abide by the terms and conditions thereof.

10.Deliverables

The key deliverables for this consultancy will include below reports and tools.

• Inception Report, incl. detailed methodology and data collection tools
• Professionally formatted and designed Draft Report due 20th January 2026
• Professionally formatted and designed Final Report due latest on 31st January 2026
• PowerPoint presentation of the summary of the findings and presented during final wrap-up meeting.

The report should be presented in the standard evaluation report format of BMZ with a max. 2 page summary in English.

11. Evaluation Schedule

The evaluation is expected to take a total of 28 working days, broken down as follows:

• Briefing – 1 day (Online/CBM office)
• Desk Study – 4 days (Consultants’ desk)
• Field Phase, Project Visit or remote data collection – 10 days
• De-briefing with initial findings – 1 day (Online/partner office)
• Analysis and Draft Report – 5 days (Consultants’ desk)
• Feedback on Draft Report – 5 days (CBM and partner)
• Finalising Report – 5 days (Consultants’ desk)
• Wrap-up Workshop with Stakeholders – 1 day (Online/partner or CBM office)

Total: 28 working days

12.Payment Mode

The consultancy costs will be covered as detailed below:

• The consultancy fee will be inclusive of logistics, VAT & withholding tax

• A first instalment will be paid upon approval of the Inception Report

• A second and final instalment upon delivery of the final approved report.

[1] Participants are understood as those persons directly addressed and involved in the project/programme. The objective of a project/programmes is formulated to create positive changes in the lives of those participants.

[2] CRPD = Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[3] CEDAW = Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Tagged as: CBM Kenya, Kenya