Terms of Reference
End of Project Evaluation of OVC Project, Bugesera, Rwanda
This end of project evaluation is carried out as per the agreement in the programme contract
between the Rwanda Red Cross Society (RRCS) and the Finnish Red Cross (FRC). Evaluation is
commissioned by the Finnish Red Cross in compliance with the FRC evaluation and learning
framework and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland guidelines.
TO BE FILLED IN BY RRCS
2. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coverage
and impact of the Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) project implemented in Bugesera,
paying particular attention to sustainability. By the appraisal of successes as well as challenges
in achieving the intended objectives the evaluation will ensure transparency and accountability
and in addition will provide valuable lessons learned for any future project.
The evaluation will cover a period of 2010-2012 in all project areas taking into
consideration relevant time and logistics limitations. Inclusion of all participants, either directly
or through their true representatives, is considered essential hence the evaluation methods will
be varied accordingly to facilitate this participation. Evaluation outcomes will be shared with
FRC and RRCS counter-parts who in turn will take the responsibility of disseminating the
outcomes to relevant interested parties. FRC will be responsible of sharing the outcome with
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. The outcomes are expected to provide lessons
learned to guide FRC and RRCS future programmes and to influence the ways of working. In
addition outcomes are expected to create interest among the stakeholders, most importantly
relevant government departments and therefore promote best practise. FRC is committed to
capacity building and sees the evaluation as an excellent forum for learning. Where possible,
and considering relevant qualification and objectivity requirements, partner National Society
professionals will be included to the evaluation teams of other projects than their own.
3. Evaluation Objectives and Criteria
The main objectives of the evaluation are:
- Clear conclusions and recommendations on the relevance, effectiveness and impact of
- How the governance and administrative procedures have hindered or promoted
successful realisation of programme implementation.
- Lessons learned to be utilised for RRCS.
3.2. Evaluation criteria and specific questions we are looking answers to:
Cross cutting themes: The evaluation team should consider and examine the
inclusion of the gender, social equality, inclusion of marginalised groups in the project
In the Finnish Government's Development Policy Programme of 2007, cross-cutting themes comprise:
• Promotion of the rights and the status of women and girls as well as gender and social equality.
• Promotion of the rights of easily marginalised groups, especially children, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and ethnic
minorities, and the promotion of their equal opportunities of participation
Has the project been consistent with the needs and priorities of the intended
beneficiaries (most vulnerable in the communities)?
If the situation has changed since the approval of the project plan and/or mid-term
review has the project been able to adjust, where applicable to the changed needs?
How has the project contributed to the RRCS strategic plans and aims?
How has the project contributed to FRC international strategy and aims?
Has the project complemented interventions from other actors, most importantly
relevant Government departments as guided by the auxiliary role of RC?
How well were the inputs (funds, people, materials and time) used to to produce
Has the scale of benefits been consistent with the cost? Cost-efficiency:
o To what extent has the funding been utilised to directly assist beneficiaries
o Has the project support and operational costs been reasonable (%) compared to
entire budget and beneficiary assistance?
Has the project management been compliant with the contracts, rules and regulations,
and conformed to procedures? (FRC Project Contract and guidelines)
What is the stakeholders’ viewpoint related to the performance of the project, such as
who participated and why, and the appropriateness to the local context?
Where objectives achieved on time?
Were the activities conducted in a planned and timely manner throughout the project?
Where the supervision and management mechanisms on all levels (branch, regional,
RRCS and FRC Regional/HQ) sufficient in relation to the project needs and
Were there any decisions made during the intervention that altered the goals or
priorities in acknowledged or unacknowledged ways?
Did the project address the needs of all intended beneficiaries in a consistent manner as
per project design?
Did the project achieve its intended impact?
Has the project has any unforeseen institutional impacts such as influenced RRCS or
FRC strategy, prompted changes in partners’ ways of working etc.
What is the point of view of the Red Cross Volunteers about the impact of the project in
their own lives?
Has the project been able to strengthen Red Cross presence in the community, if so
How was the exit strategy managed?
How sustainable are the project outcomes? If possible identify from your point of view
possible factors that may influence sustainability in the short, medium and long-term.
Was coordination, both external and within the organisation, addressed and managed in
a cohesive and effective manner throughout the project keeping in mind sustainability?
Is there concrete evidence that outcomes are linked with relevant permanent structures
such as relevant Ministries and other relevant stakeholders? Are the stakeholders in
questions motivated and do they have realistic plans for future support where needed?
• HIV/AIDS as a health and social challenge.
How has the project been able to contribute towards the sustainability of the RC branch
and its activities? Has the branch included project components into its regular activities?
Has the project been able to contribute towards development of the community, e.g are
the community groups formed likely to continue functioning without project support?
4. Evaluation Methodology
The key project documents for the evaluation are;
Mid-term review report
Specific project related documentation; narrative, log frame, budget
Quarterly reports and field monitoring reports (FRC, HQ, Regional)
Training reports, MoM’s etc
Baseline and endline where applicable
NS strategy document and any other guiding documents such as health strategy etc
Relevant local government guidelines and policies
MFA (donor) development policy and guidelines
Federation strategy 2020, relevant IFRC policies and guidelines
RRCS strategic plan
Methods of data collection and analysis will be discussed and defined by the evaluation team in
the inception report.
The evaluation team will provide:
An inception report by the Team Leader following the desk work and prior to the
mission to demonstrate a clear understanding and realistic plan of work for the
evaluation. The inception report outlines how s/he will lead the evaluation, work plan
and detailing the planned methodology. The inception report will be reviewed by the
FRC Internal Review Group.
A debriefing in country to the RRCS management / possibly FRC regional delegate and
key project stakeholders at the end of the mission to discuss the initial findings,
conclusions and recommendations. The team will produce a memo on debriefing with
the RRCS prior to departure. Feedbacks from the debriefing will be integrated in the
A draft evaluation report within two weeks return from the field visit. The draft will be
shared with RRCS and other relevant stakeholders for comments. The comments from
the FRC, RRCS and the relevant stakeholders will be forwarded to the Team Leader
within two weeks after receiving the draft.
A final evaluation report to be submitted to the FRC within 2 weeks of receiving the
comments. Report format will be provided by FRC and will have a maximum length of
20 pages, excluding annexes.
A presentation of the evaluation findings at the FRC and RRCS if possible.
8. Practical considerations
Facilitative responsibilities are shared as follows:
Who Items Notes
FRC Development of evaluation TOR and budget FRC FOCAL
Identification and recruitment of the evaluation team members POINT: Linda
Briefing of team leader and if feasible team members Karvinen,
Compilation of relevant project and background documents and Programme
sharing with the team leader and members Officer
Administrative arrangements for travel (flights, visa, insurance
etc) Technical input
Communication with RRCS about in country arrangements by Ritva JÄNTTI;
Contribution to the draft report by comments regional health
Debrief with the team leader delegate
Organisation of presentation in Helsinki when possible
Sharing of report with relevant stakeholders within and outside of
RRCS Compilation of relevant project and background documents and RRCS FOCAL
sharing with the team POINT: TBC
All field arrangements, logistics, admin, meetings etc
Ensuring the set budget is kept
Communication with relevant key stakeholder about the
evaluation and timeframe, organising meetings with identified
Security brief to the evaluation team and in charge of security
team’s during in country stay
Participation to the debrief by the evaluation team
Contribution to draft report by comments
Sharing of report with relevant stakeholders in country
7. Proposed Timeline
Briefing at FRC Nairobi regional office (Skype Helsinki)
Desk review 2 days
In country evaluation 7 days including in-country debrief , all team members
o Travel days (0,5+0,5 days)
o Field days 5 days
o HQ 1 day
TOTAL FIELD DAYS: 7 days
Draft report writing 5 days
Comments from partner RRCS and FRC within 2 weeks
Finalisation of report 2 days,
Evaluator: 17 days excl. Travel days (1 day brief + 2 days review + 7 days field + 5 days
writing + 2 days finalisation)
TIMESCHEDULE TO BE CONFIRMED
8. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards.
The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and
conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of
which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable,
and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to
organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the
following evaluation standards of the IFRC.
1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost
3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with
particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
4. Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a
comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and
6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about
the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be
7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the
evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process
improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.
Evaluation team will be presenting Red Cross in the field hence all members must adhere with
the Red Cross Principles. Further information about these principles can be obtained at:
9. Evaluation Team and Qualifications.
Composition of the evaluation team
The evaluation team will consist of a team leader and an agreed number of team members
which will include also local key Ministry representatives.
Team leader Initial familiarisation with the project through briefing with FRC
Further familiarisation through project and background documents
Development of inception report, sharing with FRC for approval
Communication with FRC and RRCS focal person about practical
Division of roles and responsibilities with the other team member
Leadership throughout the evaluation process
Responsible of in country brief before departure
Adherence to partner NS security guidelines
Responsible of compilation of draft report and sharing with FRC and RRCS
Responsible of compilation of final report
If feasible presentation of evaluation findings in FRC Nairobi (weblinked to
Team members Familiarisation through project and background documents
Participation to the evaluation process based on responsibilities agreed with
the team leader
Adherence to partner NS/IFRC security guidelines
Contribution to writing of draft report as agreed with the team leader
Contribution to in country debrief as agreed with the team leader
The evaluation team shall jointly have:
University degree/s at the post-graduate level in relevant field of study (e.g. health,
water and sanitation, community development, social sciences).
Experience with technical knowledge of relevant programme delivery using community
based and participatory methods in developing countries.
Solid knowledge and experience of project monitoring and evaluation methods and
Proven experience in evaluating development co-operation projects, including analysing
development impacts and cross cutting objectives.
Excellent analytical, writing and presentation skills.
Ability and willingness to work in a team and within tight timeframe
Sound knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and it works preferred.
Good knowledge of written and spoken English or French depending on the context
Date and signature / FRC, Linda Karvinen, EA Programme Officer, FRC
Date and signature / Franck Cyubahiro, Head of Health, RRCS