Rutgers is the leading Dutch center of expertise on sexuality. We are active in The Netherlands and internationally in about 20 countries. Together with other civil society organisations, professionals in the field and experts by experience, we advocate for positive change on issues that matter and have a major impact on people's health and lives. We work to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights, access to sexuality education and information, access to contraception and safe abortions, and on the prevention of sexual violence. We do this in a variety of ways. Rutgers connects research, practice and advocacy. We are there for everyone, with an extra focus on young people. We speak out against injustice and for important human values, especially when they are under pressure or under-reported. 

We are looking for a:  

Ado Avance Ensemble (AAE) is a 3-year EU-funded programme being implemented in five countries in the West and Central Africa region (Burkina Faso, Benin, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Togo). The programme runs from August 2022 to July 2025, and it is managed by a Consortium that is organized at three levels and includes the following partners:  ABBEF, ABPF, AIBEF, ATBEF, CAMNAFAW (at national level), Ipas and DKT International (at regional level) and Rutgers (at global level).

The Ado Avance Ensemble consortium is seeking the services of an evaluator for the purpose of conducting a final evaluation of the AAE programme according to the terms of reference set out herein. Key details:    

• Programme location: 
  Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Benin 

• Application deadline: 
  10 January 2025 

• Timeline: 
  January – December 2025 

• Indicative budget: 
  100.000 Euro  

Programme background

The AAE programme is primarily aimed to enable vulnerable adolescents (10-19 yrs.) to fully exercise their sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in societies that support their needs, with a specific emphasis on out-of-school girls. Understanding the importance of addressing the wider social and structural conditions, the programme also recognizes the effect family, community, education and health systems, and government have on adolescent SRHR issues. Using this socio-ecological model, the programme is based on a multi-component intervention that allows to reach target groups at each layer, thereby contributing both to adolescents’ access to SRHR information and services (including Comprehensive Sexuality Education – CSE, contraception and safe abortion), and to societies that are more supportive of adolescent SRHR needs. 

The programme aims to achieve four key objectives, namely to:    

1. Improve demand for, and access, to SRHR information and services;  

2. Strengthen public and community health systems; 

3. Promote an enabling political and societal environment that allows vulnerable adolescents to access quality SRHR information and services. 

4. Strengthening regional collective evidence-based advocacy of the consortium members and youth movements on SRHR   

Key cross-cutting issues such as meaningful and inclusive youth participation and gender transformative approaches are streamlined across the AAE programme and its actions.

The programme results and indicators are listed below. 

Objectives of the evaluation and evaluation questions  

The endline evaluation of the AAE programme has two major objectives: 

1. Accountability: evaluate the effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability and impact of the programme and report on the same to the EU and other audiences. 

2. Learning: provide insights into what worked well and what challenges were encountered during the programme implementation, to learn from those insights and improve future programming. 

These objectives are captured in the following evaluation questions: 

a. Effectiveness: To what extent was the programme effective in reaching the programme’s outcomes and outputs? (in terms of creating access to SRH information for youth, enhanced quality of services, a more supportive societal environment, sensitized decision-makers and strengthened regional collective evidence-based advocacy) 

b.Relevance: To what extent is the programme deemed relevant considering the specific country contexts and the needs of programme ultimate stakeholders (adolescents, youth and their communities)? 

c. Efficient: To what extent can the programme be considered efficient in terms of appropriate budget planning, adequate grant allocation and functional financial disbursement within the consortium? 

d. Sustainability: To what extent are the strategies promoted by the AAE programme aimed at youth exercising their sexual and reproductive health and rights, considered to result in lasting results and fit for scaling up? What would be actionable recommendations for the implementation model to become more sustainable or scalable? 

e. Impact: What significant long-term changes have been observed in AAE programme’s impact areas such as sense of decision making, level of satisfaction with SRH services,  perceived support from community members in making SRH decisions and birth rates in relation to use of contraceptives? 

f. Lessons learned: what are the best practices and actionable lessons that may inform future similar programming? Where did the project not achieve its main outcomes as expected and the reasons for this, as well as any unexpected outcomes and emerging lessons? 

The partnership calls for an external, independent party to address these objectives clearly and comprehensively in all five countries where the AAE programme has been implemented. Results from the endline evaluation need to provide insights for future programmes. The evaluators are requested to further develop and finetune the evaluation questions during the inception phase.  Further details about the programme, methods and approach, selection process, and the timeline for the assignment are presented below.

Scope  

The AAE endline evaluation will look at programme implementation at both country, regional and global level and the interlinkage between those levels such as for capacity strengthening and advocacy strategies. The endline evaluation reports will consist of a global consolidated evaluation report as well as five separate country reports. The consolidated report will include an analysis of key findings from across the five focus countries and at regional level, as well as findings and interlinkages between country, regional and global levels. The successful candidates will be end- responsible for the quality of both the consolidated report as well as the country reports and supporting data and analysis. 

The endline evaluation of the AAE programme is expected to cover the five countries where the programme has been implemented: Benin, Cameroon, Togo, Burkina Faso and Côte d’Ivoire. 

The programme implementation period spans August 2022 – July 2025. 

Proposed methods and approach  

Mixed method 

Next to that, to sufficiently address the specific objectives, the AAE consortium proposes a mixed method approach. First, existing project documents, progress reports and other relevant documents such as academic studies carried out during the programme, will be shared by the AAE team during the inception phase. The evaluator is expected to conduct the evaluation in a rigorous manner to produce information that is valid and reliable based on quality data and analysis. The proposed methods include desk review, surveys, focused group discussions and Key Informant Interviews. 

Furthermore, a baseline survey among youth has been conducted in four countries in 2023 providing data for the 5 impact indicators. Countries include Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Togo and Côte d’Ivoire. It is expected that the same survey will be conducted as part of the endline evaluation, and the methodology should involve a comparison between baseline and endline survey findings. Additional questions may be added to the baseline survey to strengthen the quality and support the interpretation of the survey findings.  

The Baseline survey has not been implemented in Benin. Therefore, a different approach should be developed for Benin. In this country the endline evaluators could consider conducting a survey among youth in programme areas and a survey conducted among youth in non-AAE sites in Benin. The AAE consortium is also open to alternative approaches for the endline evaluation in Benin. Baseline tools, survey data and reports will be made available to the selected evaluator. 

Qualitative data collection should seek to complement survey findings. Suitable qualitative methods should be proposed to zoom in on explaining what worked or hampered achieving impacts and outcome results of the programme. This can be done through review of project documents, interviews with project staff and stakeholders. In particular, the evaluation should focus on key programme strategies and how these contributed to achieving the outcomes (e.g capacity strengthening, MIYP, joint advocacy, etc). Also, the qualitative data collection would seek to identify which baseline study recommendations were implemented and how. For 1 or 2 key strategies or specific interventions, it would be suggested to apply a realist evaluation that looks more specifically into how context plays into when, for whom, under what circumstances these strategies and interventions worked to trigger mechanisms that led to intended change. 

The evaluator is also expected to propose his/her elaborated methodology, which should include but is not limited to: 

• Develop an evaluation matrix outlining the sources of data for each of the evaluation questions 

• Using appropriate sampling methods, identify programme stakeholders to be involved in the evaluation as well as geographical sites to be visited. To the extent possible the evaluation should include sites where the programme has been successful and where the programme has had challenges. For the survey, the same sites as the baseline study, are proposed to be included in the sample. 

• Develop criteria for key informants identification and make a list of key informants together with the AAE consortium 

• Consult with the AAE country teams on methods and techniques and finalize the methodology and data collection plan before implementation of evaluation field activities 

• Field activities include surveys, FGDs, in-depth interviews, and Key Informant Interviews 

• Elaborate a suitable and rigorous data analysis approach 

• Prepare draft report as per guidelines 

Overall, the proposed methodology should be designed to enable answering all evaluation questions. 

Feminist Evaluation Principles and Realist evaluation approaches 

For the implementation of a comprehensive evaluation of the Ado Avance Ensemble programme, integrating feminist evaluation principles and realist evaluation approaches is essential to uncovering both the nuanced and practical impacts of the initiative. A feminist evaluation approach emphasizes inclusivity, ensuring that diverse voices, particularly those of marginalized groups, are heard and valued. This perspective is felt to be crucial in SRHR programmes, where gendered power dynamics can significantly influence access to resources and services. This evaluation aims to provide insights into the lived experiences of beneficiaries, helping to identify inequalities and systemic biases that may otherwise be overlooked. Furthermore, participatory evaluation approaches are strongly embedded in Feminist Evaluation Principles. Applicants are encouraged to explain clearly in their proposal how stakeholders such as youth, communities and project implementers, will be meaningfully involved in key evaluation tasks.  

Meanwhile, a realist evaluation approach is suggested to complement this by focusing on understanding "what works, for whom, under what circumstances, and why." This method acknowledges the complexity of SRHR interventions, which often operate in varied sociocultural environments. Realist evaluation helps unpack how different programme components yield different outcomes across contexts, thus providing a more detailed understanding of the programme's  mechanisms and enabling the formulation of targeted recommendations for improvement. Together, these approaches seek to ensure that the evaluation captures both the depth of participants' experiences and the structural factors that shape programme effectiveness. Furthermore, insights from health practitioners, decision-makers such as government officials, and community members, will be included. 

Meaningful youth engagement 

The AAE consortium is committed to the principle of meaningful and inclusive youth participation (MIYP).  Engaging youth meaningfully in evaluating a Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) program is essential for ensuring that the program accurately reflects their needs, experiences, and perspectives. Youth bring unique insights and lived experiences that can enrich the evaluation process, helping to identify areas for improvement and highlight successes from their vantage point. Meaningful engagement involves engaging youth as active partners in the evaluation—not just as participants but as contributors in design, data collection, analysis, and decision-making. This approach fosters a sense of ownership, ensures the relevance of the findings, and builds young people's capacity in evaluation skills, empowering them to advocate for their health and rights effectively. Prioritizing youth involvement in the AAE evaluation ensures that the results are both comprehensive and authentically representative, leading to more impactful and sustainable outcomes. The consortium expects applicants for this evaluation assignment to clearly outline in their proposal how this meaningful youth engagement principle will be strongly embedded in the evaluation design. 

Evaluation set-up 

The AAE consortium seeks to recruit an international evaluator or team of evaluators to oversee the AAE endline evaluation. The endline evaluation consultant is expected to work with the reference group and programme team to understand and clarify scope of the endline during the inception phase of the evaluation process. The consultants are expected to cooperate with country consortium members to increase quality, relevance and programme ownership of the end evaluation. The endline evaluation will build on existing relevant literature and secondary data as well as monitoring data on outputs and outcomes achieved collected by the consortium. Furthermore, new data will be collected to answer evaluation questions.  

Roles and responsibilities 

Consultants selected to conduct the AAE's endline evaluation are responsible for implementing the endline evaluation and making sure all evaluation objectives are fully met. This responsibility includes the evaluation design, ensuring the recruitment of country consultants in close consultation with (country) consortium members, training of country consultants, drafting of field work plan, ensuring data collection, supporting the data analysis, facilitating a validation process and ensuring high quality draft and final report are delivered integrating feedback provided by the reference group.  

A reference group is established to provide strategic and technical advice during the different steps of the process of conducting the endline evaluation of the Ado Avance Ensemble programme.  The purpose of this Reference Group is to ensure an inclusive and participatory approach, sufficient technical quality, and ample opportunities for expertise and diverse experiences to inform the AAE end evaluation and future programming. In addition, the reference group is to ensure adequate ownership of the AAE consortium partners of the end line evaluation. 

Main tasks for the reference group are: 

• Review ToRs  

• Contribute to recruit global consultant  

• Review inception report 

• Review research methodology and tools 

• Review all drafts of the evaluation report 

The reference group consists of one PMEL representative of the country partners, one programme coordinator of country partners, 2 youth movement representatives from two different countries, one representative from Ipas, the Rutgers PMEL manager and the AAE programme manager.  

Other consortium stakeholders at national, regional and global level will be involved in finetuning country evaluation plans, supporting the consultants in setting up and implementing the data collection process, and ensuring the validation of preliminary country and regional level findings. 

Users of the evaluation findings

Considerations of the ultimate users of the endline evaluation should inform all evaluation decisions. We anticipate that the key audiences and end users of the report include: 

• Members and partners of the partnership. The findings will be used by consortium members in the programme countries to steer and adapt future programmes, and to identify successful strategies and lessons learned. 

• Programme participants and stakeholders in each country. Engaging directly with these audiences ensures downward accountability and ensures learning, inspiration and motivation. 

• The international field of SRHR programming, contributing to global learning and innovation concerning best practices, scalable interventions, and lessons learned. 

• Furthermore, the evaluation report will be shared with the European Union (the primary donor to the programme). 

Timeline and deliverables 

The selected consultants are expected to start their assignment in January 2025. The deadline for the final report will be the end of November 2025. The timeline is indicative and dates may be subject to change prior to the hiring of consultants.  

The following deliverables are expected for this endline evaluation: 

1. Hiring of country consultants (February 2025): The international consultant(s) will be required to hire, and line manage country consultants in each programme country. If they have an existing team of researchers within project countries which can effectively organize and accomplish research processes within the countries, then they can propose that as part of the proposal. However, AAE country partners will be consulted and also provide CVs of national consultants that will be taken into account during the selection process.   

   This process of recruitment is expected to be completed by the end of February 2025. 

2. Global kick off meeting with consultants and reference group (3-7 March - indicative): after the recruitment and contracting of all evaluation team members is finalized, it is proposed to organize an online kick off meeting with all consultants and the internal reference group to discuss the details of the assignment and expectations.

3. Country evaluation planning workshops (10-18 March): After the global kick off meeting and before drafting the inception report, country consultants are required to conduct face-to-face or online endline evaluation planning workshops with each country team. This should include developing a country specific endline evaluation plan that includes an approach to meet the overall evaluation objectives as well as country specific evaluation questions. This activity should inform and support the international endline consultants to develop the inception report.

4. Inception report and development of country specific tools (by 18 April): The inception report should provide a clear road map for the consultants and the AAE consortium for the endline evaluation. Data collection tools should be part of the inception report and need approval before data collection takes off. 

5. Obtaining ethical clearance in the five programme countries (19 March-15 June): After the country evaluation planning workshops took place, in each country applications for ethical clearance can be submitted. This process may take up to 3 months.  

6. Planning fieldwork (12 May-15 June): while awaiting the ethical clearance in each country, the consultants are expected to prepare for the data collection in each country by identifying geographical sites, selecting key informants and composing focus group discussions. At the same time the mobile survey needs to be set up and country consultants and possibly enumerators, should be hired and trained. Finally, the desk review could be conducted in this phase (mid-May to mid-June). 

7. Collect and analyse data at global, regional and national level (15 June – 31 July 2025). 

8. Submission and presentation of draft report (15 October): The structure of the draft report should be provided in the inception report and agreed upon with the consortium. This includes both the consolidated global report as well as the country reports. 

9. Methodology for and (co-)facilitation of a validation and learning process (15 – 30 October 2025): The methodology for the validation and learning event will be developed by the consultants and agreed by the AAE consortium. Validation and learning events should be conducted online for all five countries as well as at the regional level. Roles during the event will be agreed upon. 

10. Final report (1 December 2025): The final report should be robust and the reporting process smooth with sufficient room for feedback. The final report should contain all raw data from the surveys. 

A detailed timeline for this end evaluation is presented below. 

Requirements for potential candidates  

We are looking for a consultant or a team of consultants.  

The consultant(s) must meet the following criteria and qualifications which will be assessed using a scoring method during the selection process. 

• Proven expertise in conducting multi-country programme endline evaluations 

• Proven experience in evaluating SRHR programmes. 

• Proven experience in conducting evaluations of EU funded programmes  is desired 

• Strong quantitative and qualitative data collection, analysis and research skills including statistical methods/skills using SPSS or STATA 

• Works from a Human Rights Based approach, assessing the ability of right holders to claim their rights and the role of duty bearers to respect and protect the sexual and reproductive health and rights of AAE ultimate stakeholders 

• Has a progressive stance on sexual and reproductive health and rights, specifically young people’s sexual rights and diversity. 

• Demonstrated experience or commitment to inclusivity by effectively engaging young people in all their diversity, in the evaluation process. 

• Experience with Feminist Evaluation Principles and Realist evaluation approaches desired 

• Strong writing skills with ability to present in a style that is accessible to readers. 

• Strong collaborative way of working. 

• Strong facilitation skills. 

• Proficiency in English and French. 

Criteria for the technical proposal: 

• Alignment with/understanding of the TOR in general. 

• Feasibility of the proposal in terms of objectives and timeline. 

• Strong proposal for participant selection/sampling of countries, data collection and analysis methodology. 

• Level of attention for gender, meaningful and inclusive youth participation, inclusivity, and diversity, and how this is considered in the methodology. 

• Strong proposal for how research ethics will be upheld during this endline evaluation 

• Clear and appropriate roles for different team members (if more than one consultant) and clear plan for division of roles between international consultant(s) and country consultants. 

• Readability of the proposal. 

• Competitive budget, including whether the proposed total cost of the evaluation is realistic and achievable within the indicated budget 

• Sufficient attention to time consideration for management of country consultants, how data from countries will contribute to the global level report, and how quality assurance will be done given the diverse consultants involved. 

• The organization of joint learning within the endline evaluation process and the division of labor between global and country consultants need to be clearly defined and proposed in the bid 

• Demonstrates how would they meet data protection requirements to comply with GDPR 

• The international consultant(s) should not comprise current or former staff (minimum of 5 years) of any of the members or partners of the consortium (including volunteers and board members), in order to protect the independence of the evaluation.