TOR for the Final Evaluation of a ″ Service Delivery Improvement and Citizens Engagement for Development and Democratization (SDICE4DaD) ″ Project

PHE EC has deployed technical staff for implementation and maintained a system of progress tracking and reporting to the donor as well as other key stakeholders to the project. Now, with the completion of the implementation period PHE EC has decided to commission and engage an external consultant to evaluate the overall performance of implementation.

The evaluation will assess the approaches applied for achieving results, with due emphasis on efforts related to capacity building and partnerships (the interplay between the efforts of Partners, Associates, target groups and associations of beneficiaries).

Purpose and objectives

The overall purpose of the final evaluation is: to contribute to strengthening accountability to key stakeholders and the internal learning of PHE EC with regard to performances in programme implementation, generating lessons learnt and assuring result orientation.

This evaluation, within the overall thematic area of advocacy and capacity building in service delivery and community engagement has the following specific objectives:

• To identify and assess outputs and outcomes of activities implemented as part of the project ″ Service Delivery Improvement and Citizens Engagement for Development and Democratization (SDICE4DaD) ″. To the extent possible the contribution of the activities to the overall objectives of the project as well as to that of the mission of PHE EC will be assessed.
• In comparison to expected results in project document, assess how and to what extent the approaches applied by PHE EC contribute to the improvement in the well-being of citizens’ and service delivery in the project area.
• Relevance – among others, how well matched are the project interventions to the socio-cultural, institutional, political and economic contexts of the target groups and the country/region? Were opportunities, entry points and risks clearly articulated and employed or managed?
• Efficiency - Are projects/program inputs consistent with efficient achievement of outputs and outcomes? Have project funds been disbursed in ways consistent with efficient achievement of objectives? Have all partners been able to provide their contributions to the project? Given objectives, were alternative approaches available that could have been used resources more efficiently?
• Effectiveness - Have the interventions achieved or are likely to achieve their objectives? Have the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI's); targets according to the log frame, been achieved as planned to date? What is the quality of results achieved? What is the likelihood of the Specific Objectives to be achieved as envisaged and measured in the OVI's of the Log frame? To what extent is the choice of intervention channels and mechanisms adequate to achieve the intended results? What are the main obstacles/challenges to achieve the intended results?  Has there been any change in objectives? What explains any non-achievement of objectives? Are there any unexpected outcomes? 
• Impact: Did the assumptions at project purpose (Specific Objectives) level remained true over the implementation period? What are the key achievements of the interventions in terms of policy, practice and behaviour change? What are the intended/envisaged pathways from project results to broader overall development outcomes?
• Sustainability: How likely is it that outputs and outcomes of the interventions will be sustained? What actions/conditions have been put in place to sustain changes in channels and mechanisms? Are capacities supported by the interventions likely to be sustained and result in sustained improvements in the future?
• Coherence: How compatible was the intervention with other interventions in the country, sector or institution.
• Internal coherence addresses the synergies and interlink ages 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. This includes complementarity, harmonization and co-ordination with others, and the extent to which the intervention is adding value while avoiding duplication of effort.
• Assess the usefulness of applied Monitoring and Evaluation systems for achievement, documentation and communication of results.