Consultancy - Final Evaluation

Terms of Reference for evaluations1. IntroductionADRA Sudan is an international non-governmental organization and a member of the global ADRA network, which has been operating in Sudan for more than two decades. ADRA Sudan implements humanitarian and development programmes across several sectors including Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL), WASH, Protection, Education, and Resilience, working with conflict-affected, displaced, and vulnerable communities in multiple states of Sudan.With financial support from Bread for the World (BftW) and co-funding from other partners, ADRA Sudan has been implementing the Livelihood Enhancement of community project in Blue Nile State, Kurmuk Locality, for the period 1 May 2023 to 30 April 2026.The overall development goal of the project is to contribute to the sustainable livelihood enhancement of target communities in Blue Nile State. The project objective is to enhance food security and the socio-economic status of vulnerable smallholder farmers and pastoralists through a comprehensive food systems and resilience approach. The project interventions include, among others:* Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and Pastoralist Field Schools (PFS), * Strengthening access to agricultural inputs and markets, * Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA), * Community Action Planning (CAP), * Gender equality and GBV prevention and awareness, * Strengthening community structures and local capacities.The project targets approximately 1,250 vulnerable households (including at least 550 women) among host communities, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and returnees. Implementation is carried out by ADRA Sudan in close collaboration with the Sudan Social Development Organization (SUDO) as a local implementing partner, as well as in coordination with the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Social Development, local authorities, and relevant UN agencies and coordination platforms.The project is implemented in a complex and fragile context characterized by protracted conflict, population displacement, weak market systems, high food insecurity, climate shocks (especially floods), poor infrastructure, and limited access to basic services. Blue Nile State is also marked by social and ethnic diversity, land and resource-based conflicts, and significant gender inequalities, all of which influence both project implementation and outcomes.2. Cause and objective of the evaluationThe Livelihood enhancement of community project is approaching the end of its implementation period (May 2023 – April 2026). In line with ADRA Sudan’s accountability commitments to affected populations, partners, and donors—particularly Bread for the World—ADRA Sudan has decided to commission an independent final evaluation of the project.The evaluation is being conducted in order to:* Assess the overall performance of the project against its stated objectives, expected results, indicators, and Theory of Change; * Determine the extent to which the project has achieved its intended outcomes, particularly in relation to food security, livelihoods, resilience, and the socio-economic status of women and vulnerable groups; * Examine the quality, relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the project design and implementation approach in the complex conflict- and climate-affected context of Blue Nile State; * Identify key lessons learned, good practices, and challenges, and document what worked well and what did not, and why; * Generate practical and forward-looking recommendations to inform: * Future programming in Blue Nile and similar contexts, * Potential follow-up or scale-up phases of the FSOC approach, * ADRA Sudan’s broader Food Security, Livelihoods, and Resilience portfolio.The evaluation is being conducted at this point in time because the project is nearing completion, making it possible to assess both the achievement of outputs and outcomes as well as the early signs of impact and sustainability of the interventions.The primary users of the evaluation findings will be:* ADRA Sudan senior management and programme teams, * Bread for the World and other partners/donors, * The implementing partner (SUDO), * Relevant government counterparts and coordination platforms.The evaluation was initiated by ADRA Sudan as the implementing and contracting agency, in agreement with the financing partner, Bread for the World, as part of the project’s learning, accountability, and quality assurance commitments.The findings of this evaluation will be used for strategic decision-making, organizational learning, accountability reporting, and future project design, rather than for project continuation funding decisions for the current phase.3. Key questionsThe evaluation should, at minimum, address the following questions:3.1 Relevance(Are we doing the right thing?)* To what extent was the project design aligned with: * The needs and priorities of smallholder farmers, pastoralists, women, IDPs and returnees in Kurmuk locality? * The food security, livelihoods, gender and resilience context of Blue Nile State? * To what extent were the project objectives, strategies, and intervention logic consistent with: * National and local priorities and policies? * Bread for the World and ADRA Sudan strategic frameworks? * To what extent were gender equality, inclusion, conflict sensitivity, and environmental/climate risks appropriately integrated into the project design and implementation? * Were the targeting criteria and beneficiary selection mechanisms appropriate, fair, and conflict-sensitive?3.2 Effectiveness(Are we achieving the objectives?)* To what extent have the project’s planned outputs and outcomes been achieved? * To what extent has the project contributed to: * Improved household food security? * Improved agricultural production and productivity? * Improved income and livelihood opportunities? * Improved socio-economic status and decision-making power of women? * To what extent have the different components (FFS/PFS, VSLA, CAP, market linkages, gender activities) reinforced each other? * What were the key enabling and constraining factors affecting achievement of results? * To what extent were women, youth, IDPs, returnees, and people with disabilities able to participate meaningfully and benefit equitably from the project?3.3 Efficiency(Are we using resources in the best way?)* Were financial, human, and material resources used in a cost-effective and timely manner? * Were management, coordination, and partnership arrangements (including with SUDO and government counterparts) appropriate and efficient? * Were implementation modalities, procurement, and delivery mechanisms suitable to the operating context? * Could the same or better results have been achieved with fewer resources or through alternative approaches?3.4 Impact(What difference has the project made?)* What intended and unintended changes (positive or negative) can be observed at household, community, and systems level in relation to: * Food security and nutrition * Livelihoods and income * Resilience and coping strategies * Gender relations and social cohesion * Are there any early signs of systemic change (e.g. in local extension systems, input supply systems, community organization, or market behavior)? * Has the project contributed to reducing vulnerability and strengthening resilience to shocks (conflict, floods, climate, market shocks)? * Have any negative effects (e.g. environmental pressure, social tensions, exclusion) emerged, and how were they addressed?3.5 Sustainability(Will the benefits last?)* To what extent are the project results and benefits likely to be sustained after the end of the project? * What is the likelihood that: * FFS/PFS groups will continue to function? * VSLA groups will remain active and self-managed? * Community Action Plans (CAP) processes will continue? * Input supply and market linkages will be maintained? * To what extent do local institutions, community structures, and government services have the capacity and ownership to sustain the achievements? * What factors support or threaten sustainability, particularly in relation to conflict, climate, markets, and gender norms?In line with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, the evaluation will also assess coherence as a key dimension of sustainability, including:* The extent to which the project was coherent with relevant national and local policies, strategies, and systems (e.g. agriculture, livelihoods, gender, and resilience frameworks); * The degree of internal coherence among project components (FFS/PFS, VSLA, CAP, market linkages, gender and GBV interventions) and how these reinforced sustainability outcomes; * The extent of external coherence and complementarity with other interventions by government, UN agencies, NGOs, and coordination platforms operating in Blue Nile State; * Whether the project avoided duplication and maximized synergies, contributing to longer-term systems strengthening and sustainability. * This assessment will ensure that sustainability is examined not only at activity and community level, but also in relation to the broader policy, institutional, and coordination environment, in accordance with OECD-DAC standards.3.6 Cross-Cutting and Systems Questions* To what extent was the project gender-transformative rather than only gender-sensitive? * To what extent did the project promote inclusion of the most vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities? * To what extent did the project apply Do No Harm and conflict-sensitive approaches? * To what extent were environmental and climate resilience considerations integrated into activities and community practices?3.7 Project Management, MEAL and Accountability* To what extent was the project’s MEAL system fit for purpose and used for adaptive management and learning? * How effective were the accountability and complaints/feedback mechanisms? * To what extent did monitoring data, learning, and reflection influence management decisions and implementation quality?4. Evaluation design/methodsThe evaluator shall use both primary and secondary information, which includes but not limited to:* The geographic scope of this evaluation covers all project sites as described in the project’s mutually binding document. * The evaluator will need to review the approval documents, socioeconomic study reports which studied related to the project, progress reports, audit reports, monitoring and annual review meeting reports, summary project budget and other records during the evaluation. * The evaluator will need to review the relevant organizational information or documents and interview the relevant stakeholders (Management, staff). This information/document will be made available to the successful candidate upon commencement of the evaluation. * Key informants’ interviews with community leaders, local partners and Key government departments. * Field and household level observations. * Conduct case studies (especially for comparison with surrounding Kebele, which have not been part of the intervention). * Focus group discussion and interview with beneficiaries on the field visit, discussion with project staff, sector offices and other stakeholders. * Analyze the lessons learnt and * Analyze the data quantitatively and qualitatively, present findings, and formulate recommendations.5. Process of the evaluation/time framePhase Activities Deliverables Timeline1. Contracting & PreparationActivities:• Contract signature and mobilization• Handover of project documentation• Initial briefing with ADRA SudanDeliverables:• Signed contract• Shared document package• Agreed workplanTimeline: 10 March 20262. Inception PhaseActivities:• Desk review of project documents• Refinement of evaluation questions and methodology• Development of data collection tools• Preparation of Inception ReportDeliverables:• Inception ReportTimeline: 12 March 2026Activities:• Review and approval by ADRA SudanDeliverables:• Approved Inception ReportTimeline: 13–16 March 20263. Data Collection PhaseActivities:• Field visits to project locations in Blue Nile State• Key informant interviews, FGDs, and other data collection activities• End-of-mission debriefing with ADRA SudanDeliverables:• Field debriefingTimeline: 17 March – 1 April 20264. Analysis & Reporting PhaseActivities:• Data cleaning, analysis, and triangulation• Drafting of evaluation reportDeliverables:• Draft Evaluation ReportTimeline: 2–10 April 20265. Finalization PhaseActivities:• Review of draft report by ADRA and stakeholders• Incorporation of comments• Final editing and submissionDeliverables:• Final Evaluation ReportTimeline: 13–20 April 20266. Key Indicator to be collectedObjective: Communities' food security status is enhanced.Indicator 1: Out of 1.250 (550 female) households reached through agricultural production and marketing, 90% reduced their food gap from 4 to zero months. (Baseline data will be collected within the first six months of the project)Indicator 2: The average annual income of 90% of .1250 (550 female) households reached through agricultural production and marketing interventions is increased by 45%. (Baseline data will be collected within the first six months of the project)Objective: The socio-economic status of the target women is enhanced.Indicator 1: Out of 1.250 (550 female) households reached through awareness of gender and GBV interventions, at least 50% reported that they practice joint decision-making at the household level over food resources. (Baseline data will be collected within the first six months of the project)7. Sampling FrameworkUsing a statistically significant sample of project beneficiaries and will be guided by the evaluation sampling frame for realistic and representative results.For the quantitative data collection, a household survey will be used using a statistically representative sample of project participants using a confidence interval level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. Furthermore, to solve the problem of “no answer,” the size of the sample will be increased by at least 10% or a percentage suggested by the consultant.For qualitative data, purposive sampling should be used. The consultant should include the qualitative methods to be used, the method of key informant selection and the sample size indicating the formula used.8. Expected productsThe evaluator(s) will be responsible for producing the following deliverables in English and in accordance with the timelines agreed in Section 5:8.1 Inception ReportThe evaluator(s) shall submit an Inception Report after the desk review and initial consultations. The inception report shall include, at minimum:* Refined evaluation questions and evaluation matrix * Detailed methodology and evaluation design * Data collection tools and sampling strategy * Stakeholder mapping and consultation plan * Workplan and timeline * Ethical considerations, including conflict sensitivity, protection, and gender/inclusion aspec…