Registered Users
Posted Jobs

Job Description:

Evaluation Title

Evaluation of Girls Education Project -Pakistan

Timeline of Evaluation

July 2017 – June 2019

About the program/ Project

 Since July, 2017 - 2019, Our organization has implemented a Girl’s Education program in two Districts of Sindh namely Thatta and Umerkot. The project is implemented through a phased approach. Phase wise objectives and outcomes presented as follows:

Objectives and the key outcomes of the phase I-II:


Sr. No.

Project Phases




Phase I

(July 2017- June 2018)

Young girls of Thatta and Umer Kot are empowered to take their decisions for their educational and wellbeing needs.


Outcome-1: Enhanced opportunities for girls of Thatta and Umerkot to access education on sustainable basis.

Outcome-2: Enabling environment with improved changes in social norms allowing young girls to claim their educational rights



Phase II

(July 2018- June 2019)

Support public schools to deliver inclusive, quality education to 8,250 children by building teachers’ capacity on Early Childhood Care and Education (EECE) and fostering positive learning environments and by engaging stakeholders in school improvement plans.

Outcome 1: children in 15 target schools are receiving quality ECCE due to improved teaching methodologies

Outcome 2: Students enjoy interactive teaching methodologies and positive learning environments in 15 target schools and are attending regularly

Outcome 3: Students’ access to quality, inclusive education is enhanced in 15 target schools each year via quality and accountability mechanisms.


 Objectives of the Evaluation

This evaluation will assess the Girls Education Project (GEP) – Pakistan against the set project objectives and outcomes to gauge its relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The following key evaluation questions and sub-questions will be used:



       Is project design relevant to the needs of communities and especially the most vulnerable?

  • Are the overall goal and objectives of the project still valid?
  • Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with achieving its intended outcomes and impact? How effective was the project’s theory of change and methodology, and which specific aspects of the approach, if any, should be replicated or adapted for future programming?
  • Was the design and implementation of the program adequate to support effective gender equality and bringing positive change in social norms
  • Is the project relevant and sensitive to local needs and government priorities?
  • To what extent has the project adapted in response to challenges and lessons learnt?



     To what extent were the project objectives achieved?

  • How far has the project achieved its intended outputs and outcomes?
  • What is working well? Why?
  • Where is there room for improvement? What would that look like?
  • Are project participants and stakeholders on board in various phases of project management as per their role in design? Are community feedback and complaints mechanisms functioning well?
  • What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
  • To what extent has the project improved the access to education services of the most vulnerable?
  • What were the project’s achievements in terms of promoting gender equality and inclusion?
  • To what extent is the partner meeting its child safeguarding responsibilities and contributing to good practice in child protection?



     What real difference has the project made to the targeted schools and the local communities?

  • What evidence do we have to demonstrate impact?
  • Has the project caused any unexpected positive outcomes?
  • Has the project caused any unintended negative consequences?
  • How and with what success has the project focused on social inclusion to ensure no groups are excluded?
  • Were there any groups that were excluded from the project and if so why? Are there any strategies in place to address this?



     How likely are the benefits of the project to continue after donor funding ceases?

  • Which achievements are more sustainable than others?
  • How can the project increase the likelihood that its benefits will continue after donor funding ceases?
  • How has the project addressed the challenges identified?
  • What is the likelihood of sustainability of partnerships developed among stakeholders under project?
  • Lesson learnt and Recommendations.

 Scope of the Evaluation

 This evaluation will cover the last two years (July 2017 – June 2019) of Girls Education Project (GEP) implementation in District Umerkot.  By doing so, the evlaution will cover all outcomes and associated outcomes against aforementioned DAC Criteria. The evaluation will look at the complete range of engaged stakeholders including head teachers, teachers, students, school management committes, parents and line department. Organizational assessment is out of scope of this evaluation.

Methodology of the Evaluation

 The consultant(s) will present elaborative methodology for the evaluation by further elaborating the following key requirements:

 1. Desk review: Desk review should include all relevant program documents i.e. baseline, project proposals, program reports, plans and budget, Midterm Review, case studies, financial documents, and other related documents

 2. Evaluation Framework: The consultant(s) is expected to present a conceptual framework in their technical proposal. The consultant is expected to consider preliminary desk review findings while developing conceptual framework.

 3.Mixed Methodology: A combined/mixed approach of Qualitative and Quantitative data is expected to be used in the evaluation methodology. While selecting combined approach, the methodology should clarify the relevance/rationale for using particular methods of a particular approach in relation to the subject of evaluation.

 4. Sample size: The methodology should clearly describe the sample size calculation by employing scientific method and the rationale behind selecting the sample size.

 5. Disaggregated data: All data, qualitative and quantitative to be collected through the review must be disaggregated by sex, age, location, educational background, class.

 6. Data analysis and interpretation: The methodology should clearly describe as to how qualitative and quantitative data will be integrated in the process of analysis in the light of combined/mixed approach.

  In order to do so, the consultant(s) will require a team of experts. Therefore, the technical proposal should clearly mention the team composition including names, qualification, expertise and role of each team member in conducting this evaluation.

 Timeframe and location of the Evaluation:

 The evaluation shall be carried out between 16 January 2020- 10th March 2020.  The consultant(s) are required to submit tentative work and travel plan for conducting the evaluation. All the consultancy work should be concluded by 10 March 2020.

 1.Duration of Evaluation exercise:  Approximately 47days (field work should be done between 2nd and 3rd week of February 2020)

 2. Location of the Consultancy: District Umerkot of Sindh Province

 Deliverables of the evaluation:

 a.         Specific information about the types of deliverables required

  1. Inception report (Word document). This deliverable will detail the field plans and data collection tools to be used for this evaluation. The Commissioning Manager, Evaluation Manager, and Critical Reference Group will use this report to ensure that the purpose of the evaluation has been fully understood and the field plans and tools proposed are suitable to deliver on it.
  2. Raw dataset (Excel document(s). ORGANIZATION is the data controller for this data collection activity and is the owner of any and all data collected. The data will be used by the MEAL Unit for central data archiving and learning purposes.
  3. Initial findings presentation (Power-point document plus in-person presentation thereof). This deliverable will allow the Commissioning Manager, Evaluation Manager, and Critical Reference Group to learn about the findings of the evaluation at high level and provide an opportunity for them to clarify any issues and raise major comments and feedback.

Full evaluation report (Word document). This deliverable will present in detail the methodology, limitations, findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the evaluation for use at higher level by the Commissioning Manager and for use in project design development by the Evaluation Manager, wider project team, and donor. Recommendations should be specific and realistic. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the ToRs, cited resources or bibliography, a list of those interviewed. Tools and techniques used for evaluation and any other relevant materials. The final evaluation report will be submitted one week after receipt of the consolidated feedback from ORGANIZATION. If need to be the consultancy may be asked to present findings to both ORGANIZATION office and donor of the project.


Note: Please refer to Annex 1 For structure and form for each deliverable


 In all matters in relation to the evaluation, the consultant(s) will report to the Head of MEAL Department based in Islamabad Office. The consultant will work closely with the Project team both in main and field offices.

Intellectual property rights

 All products arising from this evaluation will be the property of ORGANIZATION. The evaluators will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his or her own work or to make use of the evaluation results for private publication purposes.