Request for end-term evaluation for the Break Free! programme

These Terms of Reference (ToR) outline the scope of work and working arrangements for an external evaluation team to conduct the end-term evaluation (ETE) for the Break Free! programme.

Background

Break Free! is a joint lobby and advocacy programme of Plan International Netherlands, SRHR Africa Trust (SAT) and Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) in collaboration with technical partners KIT Institute (KIT) and Rozaria Memorial Trust (RMT). Envisaged in the Break Free! consortium is a society where adolescents can exercise their right to live free from Teenage Pregnancy (TP) and Child Marriage (CM), supported by civil society.

The programme is funded by and in partnership with the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) under the Strengthening Civil Society for SRHR partnership fund with 25 million euros for the period of five years from January 2021 to December 2025. A baseline study was conducted in 2021 to serve as a benchmark for programme’s progress tracking and achievements. A mid-term review (MTR) was conducted in 2023, tracking progress and identifying lessons. In 2025, an external end evaluation will be conducted.

The Break Free! programme

The strategic objective of the Break Free! consortium is that adolescents exercise their right to live free from teenage pregnancy (TP) and child marriage (CM) supported by civil society. The Break Free! programme strengthens civil society organizations, youth-led groups and networks to lobby and advocate for improved legislation and policy implementation to increase youths’ agency and to promote social norm change in favour of the prevention of CM/TP. Three pathways of change have been identified leading towards three outcomes and the strategic programme objective:

• Outcome area 1: Adolescent girls at risk of CM/TP access quality and safe education
• Outcome area 2: Duty bearers and decision-makers develop, resource and implement laws and policies that respond to adolescents’ needs
• Outcome area 3: Adolescents access quality SRHR information, education and services

To achieve these outcomes, seven key strategies have been prioritized:

1. Social movement and network building of (youth-led) CSOs
2. Capacity building of (youth) civil society organizations (CSOs)
3. Promote access to lobby platforms
4. Lobby and advocacy campaigns
5. Research
6. Learning and exchange

Break Free! is implemented in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique, Niger, Sudan, Zambia, as well as at Pan-African regional level, targeting institutions and other stakeholders operating at this broader level.

The Break Free! Mid-Term Review report describes that trends in the context have intensified dramatically. Intersecting political, climate and economic crises reinforce each other in many of the programme implementation countries. The effect on target groups is detrimental: the vulnerability of women and girls to harmful practices increases and negatively affects target groups’ safety, livelihoods, and access to essential services. Significant negative changes have happened in Sudan, Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. The conflict in Sudan resulted in the relocation of the programme to implementation areas in Kassala and White Nile States. In Sudan, Ethiopia, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali, the programme strategies were adapted to the local humanitarian context and have included IDPs in the groups targeted.

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will cover the period of January 2021 – December 2025. The evaluation shall provide a representative conclusion on the whole programme including achievements to date on the programme indicators for all 9 countries and the regional African component. The evaluation shall be guided by the guidelines for evaluations of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the MOFA (IOB), and the 17 evaluation criteria of the IOB.

Due to the significant contextual changes in several countries, it is in the scope of this evaluation to explore the pathways of change over time within a country while considering the contextual changes, and how country programmes adapted to the changes. To zoom into specific programme components, In-depth evaluation can be proposed for a selected number of countries. The consultant shall select the countries and components, in consultation with the consortium. The main criteria for selection are: 1) thematic coverage of the Break Free! outcome areas; 2) geographical spread within countries and regional representation; 3) key developments in the context in which the programme operates, including in space for civil society.

The response to evaluation question 5 should be a cohesive conclusion of the findings related to the evaluation questions.

Purpose and objectives of the end-term evaluation

The Break Free! programme formally ends in December 2025 and per the requirements of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Break Free! consortium commissions an independent end evaluation by an external party in the final year of implementation of the programme, covering the full programme period of January 2021 until December 2025.

The objective of the end-term evaluation is to fulfil the accountability requirements of the MoFA and serves a learning purpose, with special attention to the following:

1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the programme by investigating the validity of the Theory of Change, how and to what extent the programme achieved the intended results, and to what extent the programme was able to adapt to the changing contexts;
2. Assess how the Break Free! consortium promotes sustainability of programme results;
3. Assess the internal and external coherence of the Break Free! programme;
4. Assess the consortium collaboration in terms of how the Break Free! consortium contributed to equitable partnerships;
5. Identify the drivers, constraints, good practices and lessons learned in achieving the results

Evaluation questions

In response to the above questions for each of the outcome areas (see questions 1.1-1.3), the consultant is to validate assumptions and pay particular attention to the following:
a. To what extent were results achieved per indicator?
b. How were results achieved and how can these be explained and/or attributed to programme activities?
c. Comparing the planned final outcomes versus achieved outcomes: did change occur in the way we expected?
d. Unintended and unexpected results (positive or negative) stemming from programme implementation.
e. How did the programme adjust its strategies and outcomes in response to contextual challenges (e.g. humanitarian crisis) and how did adaptations contribute to the programme outcomes?
1.1 Outcome area 1: How did the programme support adolescent girls at risk of CM/TP/FGM-C to access safe and quality education, and what outcomes were achieved?
1.2 Outcome area 2: How did the programme support the development, resourcing and implementation of laws and policies that respond to adolescent girls’ needs; and what outcomes were achieved?
1.3 Outcome area 3: How did the programme support improved access for adolescents to quality SRHR education, information and services; and what outcomes were achieved

2. What strategies have been applied to promote sustainability of results beyond 2025?
2.1 What are the enablers and disablers that contributed to sustainability in: youth voice and agency, (youth) organization’s capacity; linking and networking/ network building of youth (organization); and an enabling environment?

3. How well did the outcome areas work together and contribute to the programme goal(s)?
3.1 Did change occur in line with expectations and assumptions in the programme ToC? If not, what might be alternatives pathways and assumptions?
3.2 To what extent did the Break Free! consortium work in coherence and how did this contribute to reaching the programme objectives and intended results?
3.3 In what ways did Break Free! align with national policies and priorities in the implementation countries, and worked in complementarity with other (local) SRHR programmes, MFA and the embassies and the MFA SCS policy framework?

4. To what extent was the internal and external collaboration of Break Free! equitable?
4.1 To what extent was the external collaboration of Break Free! Equitable?
4.2 To what extent did the Break Free! consortium contribute to southern leadership and equitable internal relationships and decision making?
5. What are lessons learned in the Break Free! programme?
5.1 How did the consortium incorporate findings of the mid-term review?
5.2 What are the lessons learned from programme strategies and implementation?
5.3 What are lessons learned from the partnership collaboration?
5.4 What good practices can be identified?
5.5 What recommendations can be made for future programming?

Quality criteria and approach of the evaluation

The evaluation process shall be guided by the guidelines for evaluations of the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the MOFA (IOB), and the 17 evaluation criteria of the IOB. Furthermore, the evaluation conduct (evaluation methodology, data-collection and analysis), and corresponding products, will need to abide by the IOB Evaluation Quality criteria.

The criteria are organized by 3 phases, i.e., Phase I – Terms of Reference, Phase II – Elaborated methodology, and Phase III – Draft and final report. The consultant is requested to pay particular attention to the criteria in Phase II and Phase III. More details on the criteria and how they are assessed can be found here: Kwaliteitscriteria voor evaluaties | Richtlijn | Directie Internationaal Onderzoek en Beleidsevaluatie (IOB) (iob-evaluatie.nl)

Apart from the IOB evaluation quality criteria, the evaluation also has to meet the requirements of effectiveness and coherence from the OECD DAC Evaluation Criteria:

1. Coherence: how well does the intervention fit?[1] It informs about the compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution.
   1. Effectiveness: is the intervention achieving its objectives?[2] It is the extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups.

More details on the criteria can be found here: Evaluation Criteria | OECD.

Finally, the ETE provides progress information on indicators within the results areas of the overall Break Free! Theory of Change (ToC). The evaluation will assess the Theory of Change (ToC) to determine its relevance, coherence, and validity. The evaluation will identify which pathways worked as expected, where assumptions held true, and where course corrections were needed. Several indicators of the Break Free! programme are linked with the basket indicators of MFA’s Strengthening Civil Society grant framework. More details about the indicator framework are available here: https://helpdesk-opendata-minbuza.nl/guidelines-for-partnerships-strengthening-civil-society/.

The full overview of the Break Free! indicators is included in Annex 1, including disaggregation and reference to the MFA basket indicators.

Methodology

The consultant is requested to propose an appropriate mix of quantitative and qualitative methods that meet the quality requirements of the above-mentioned criteria set out by OECD and IOB. The methodology needs to be robust and establish causality between the Break Free! intervention activities and the Break Free! results and the extent to which these results (and outcomes) can convincingly be linked to the Break Free! programme. It should also be appropriate for making judgement on the effectiveness of the programme and to explain underlying generative causal mechanisms and how context influenced the results. We would like to know what works, for whom and under what circumstances. The preferred methods are youth friendly and participatory and include marginalised groups. Methodologies can be fine-tuned during the inception phase.

The evaluation should employ qualitative methods that are appropriate to validate results and to establish causal chain between the intervention activities and the results, and to identify unintended results. These methods may be contribution analysis, process tracing or general elimination methodology. The evaluation should also include a mapping of funding streams, e.g., the budget received by the consortium, and the budget spent on implementation (including coordination and organisation costs) and outcome areas.

Further, since one of the components of the programme is network building and capacity building of local CSOs and youth groups, the consultant is invited to propose a method that is able to capture the achievements of this component. This may be a measurement to explore capacity of CSOs involved in the Programme and active on national and sub-national level. As for the interconnectedness of CSOs network, the measurement may involve a form of social network analysis, e.g., event-based network analysis.

The evaluation team can make use of existing (quantitative and qualitative) data, including: baseline reports, M&E data, midline reports, operational research studies, IATI publication, annual plans and reports at both country and consortium level. The programme includes outcome harvesting, and advocacy tracking as regular monitoring tools. The baseline and mid-term evaluations employed questionnaires, focus-group discussions, interviews, a partnership assessment survey, CSO capacity assessments, checklists for child protection in schools and a youth engagement survey. The documentation and tools will be available for the consultant to build on previous experiences and to ensure consistency across evaluations.

The available programme information should be used as input for the desk study and can be used to triangulate and validate findings of the evaluation team through primary data collection from internal and external sources.

Sample

The sampling strategy should also consider the most marginalised target groups, youths and women. It should be appropriate to the local context. The quantitative and qualitative methods should complement each other. Finally, the sampling strategy should also adhere to the IOB Evaluation Criteria.

Analysis, feedback and sense-making

The analysis and sense-making of the information will happen after the data collection. The consultant is expected to analyse the collected data and bring together results and learning from each method. It is also expected that the results from different sources will be triangulated[3] and form a coherent evaluation on programme level by the end of the assignment. The sense-making will help to develop a coherent evaluation and may involve (online) workshops/webinars with programme staff and/or external stakeholders to improve shared understanding, sharpen findings and validate results.

The draft and final reports must undergo a structured feedback process. The consultant will present findings to the consortium and stakeholders, allowing for iterative revisions based on feedback. The consultant is responsible for consolidating feedback into the final report and ensuring the quality of deliverables in line with IOB and OECD-DAC criteria.

Reporting

The consultant is to develop a synthesis report containing a coherent evaluation of the programme (approximately 50 pages) and additional country specific chapters or reports (about 10 pages for each country). We expect the report outline to be included in the inception report.

Research ethics and safeguarding

The Break Free! consortium is committed to ensuring that the rights of those participating in data collection or analysis are respected and protected, and to act in accordance with Plan International’s Child and Youth Safeguarding Policy as well as the UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation.

The evaluation plan has to be approved by a formal ethical board. This may be an academic body the consultant is affiliated with, country level (national) ethical committee or Plan International’s Ethics Review Team.

Ethical and child protection issues need to be taken into consideration by the researcher when carrying out the evaluation. A meeting will take place with country consortium members to know in detail the organizational values, the applicable Child Safeguarding policy and the expected behaviour by the consultancy team before, during and after the fieldwork.

All applicants should include details in their proposal on how they will ensure ethics and child protection in the data collection process. Specifically, the consultant(s) shall explain how appropriate, safe, non-discriminatory participation of all stakeholders will be ensured and how special attention will be paid to the needs of children and other vulnerable groups. Safety of evaluation respondents also includes considerations that the respondent will not face backlash or risk in their community due their participation.

The consultant(s) shall also explain how confidentiality and anonymity of participants will be guaranteed. The data management of the participants’ personal information should adhere to the GDPR. Data collection instruments should include measures to ensure informed consent, confidentiality, and anonymity for all participants, with extra care taken when working with children, adolescents, and vulnerable groups.

The consultant(s) will have to provide a police certificate of good conduct and sign Plan International’s Child and Safeguarding Policy before commencement of the assignment.

In conflict-affected regions, the evaluation team must implement conflict-sensitive protocols to ensure the safety and well-being of participants and field staff. This includes contingency plans for fieldwork disruptions and remote data collection strategies, and psychosocial support where needed.

Users of the evaluation

The principal users of the end evaluation will be the consortium members, and (technical and implementation) partners of Break Free!, both at global level as in the programme implementation countries; as well as the MoFA. Evaluation findings will be used for accountability and learning purposes and to identify successes, failures and lessons learned: what approaches work and why/why not. Further, the evaluation findings will be shared with the programme target groups in an easily accessible format.

The consultant will prepare a dissemination plan in collaboration with the consortium, identifying key stakeholders, communication channels, and events for sharing findings.

The Evaluation report may be shared with the other SRHR strategic partnerships funded by MoFA, the Girls Not Brides Network, and key stakeholders in the Break Free! countries, including embassies. The final evaluation report will be published in the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) platform and it will be published on the penholder’s website. Where possible, evaluation findings will be shared through regional and international conferences and other learning events.

Deliverables

1. Evaluation inception report

A concise inception report should be prepared by the evaluators before starting the evaluation. This report details the evaluators’ understanding of what is being evaluated and why, showing how each evaluation question will be answered. The inception report should elaborate on the research design, highlighting why the – combination of – method(s) and data sources have been selected and how they are expected to validly and reliably contribute to answering the research questions.

The inception report should include an evaluation matrix, proposed data collection tools, an explanation of to be applied analysis methods, a proposed schedule of tasks, activities, proposal for ethics approval, proposed report outline, and deliverables.

2. Draft evaluation report

An English[4] synthesis report with approximately 50 pages, excluding annexes, possible case studies and executive summary.

Additionally, summary country chapters or reports with a maximum of 10 pages for each Break Free! country. The country reports for the Sahel countries should also be made available in French.

The draft and final reports must undergo a structured feedback process. The consultant team will present findings to the consortium and stakeholders, allowing for iterative revisions based on feedback. The consultant is responsible for consolidating feedback into the final report and ensuring the quality of deliverables in line with IOB and OECD-DAC criteria.

3. Final evaluation report

An English synthesis report with approximately 50 pages, and summary country chapters or reports with a maximum of 10 pages for each Break Free! country, excluding annexes, possible case studies and executive summary. The report will follow the agreed outline and be delivered in a timely manner.

Reports should also include or be accompanied with summary versions in accessible language for non-technical audiences including youth and community members.

Roles and Responsibilities

• Reference Group
• Provide quality assurance of the evaluation, analysis, evaluation report.
• Joint discussion and finalisation of the ToR;
• Review inception report and evaluation report (draft and final);
• Approve ToR, selected consultants; inception report; and final reports

Desk

• Lead development and drafting of the ToR and the management response
• Contracting and contract management of the consultant(s)
• Manage the evaluation contract and budget and ensure logistical and administrative support
• Support the Evaluation Reference Group meetings
• Facilitate access to documentation, key stakeholders, and informants;
• Facilitate communication between all stakeholders involved in the evaluation, point of contact for the consultants;
• Support the work of the consultant(s) and provide day-to-day guidance throughout the entire assignment;
• Coordinate comments on draft outputs and ensures comments are addressed by consultant
• Disseminate and follow up on evaluation findings and recommendations

PMEL working group

• Ensure quality routine M&E data is available and support country consortia with this
• Provide ongoing feedback for quality assurance during the preparation of the inception report and the final reports, with specific focus on methodologies and ensuring compliance with MOFA and IOB criteria
• Approval of inception report and final evaluation reports

BF! Programme Committee

• Discuss and review ToR
• Discuss and review draft and final evaluation report
• Contribute to development of management response
• Contribute to dissemination and follow up on evaluation findings and recommendations

BF! Board of Directors

• Review of ToR
• Review and approval of evaluation report
• Development of management response
• Contribute to dissemination and follow up on evaluation findings and recommendations

BF! Country consortia

• Keep country M&E data up to date and up to quality standards;
• Prepare and share relevant and required documents, data, information;
• Available for interviews;
• Potential advice on or organisation of field visits;
• Support consultants with introductions with stakeholders for FGD, KIIs, etc.
• Participate in data validation: either online or in-person (as part of already planned and budgeted for (closure?) meetings), tentatively October 2025

Evaluation/ Consultant Team

• Conducting the evaluation: planning, scoping, data collection and analysis, report writing
• Produce deliverables (as per contractual requirements);
• Carry out the day–to–day management of operations/activities;
• Inform Break Free! Desk and the Reference Group about developments, including regular progress reporting;
• Meet professional, ethical and safeguarding standards;
• Ensure meaningful stakeholder (including youth) involvement.

Timeline

• Selection of consultants: January 2024
• Contracting of consultants: February 2025
• Start of assignment: March 2025
• Submission of inception report: May 2025
• Ethical approval: June 2025
• Data collection in Break Free! countries: July-September 2025 (planning in consultation with BF! Desk and country consortia)
• Country level validation: October-November 2025
• First draft evaluation report: end January 2026
• (Online) presentation of evaluation findings and recommendations: end January 2026
• Consortium feedback: February 2026
• Final evaluation report: end March 2026

[1] The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution. The extent to which other interventions (particularly policies) support or undermine the intervention, and vice versa. Includes internal coherence and external coherence: Internal coherence addresses the synergies and interlinkages between the intervention and other interventions carried out by the same institution/government, as well as the consistency of the intervention with the relevant international norms and standards to which that institution/government adheres. External coherence considers the consistency of the intervention with other actors’ interventions in the same context

[2] The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups. Analysis of effectiveness involves taking account of the relative importance of the objectives or results.

[3] Triangulationis a strategy to enhance the validity and reliability of the findings by cross-verifying information from different perspectives in order to provide a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of what is being evaluated.

[4] The raw data sets must be made available to the client upon request