Evaluation Sponsor/ Owner
Evaluation Focal Point (HoM?)
Primary Stakeholders/ Evaluation Communication Group
Terms of Reference[TM1]
MEDICAL HUMANITARIAN CONTEXT[TM2]
REASON FOR EVALUATION / RATIONALE [TM3]
OVERALL OBJECTIVE and PURPOSE[TM4]
- Do project objectives correspond with identified needs? Are our intervention choices appropriately prioritised to meet the most urgent needs first?
- Was an independent needs assessment possible and carried out appropriately?
- Is the intervention appropriate according to the perception (expressed needs/demand) of the target population and/or according to national policies?
- Is the strategy appropriate in order to achieve the objectives?
- Are we close enough to the target population to understand their situation as well as possible changes in their needs (proximity)?
- Were appropriate and timely adaptations made in response to changes in the environment?
- To what extent have the agreed objectives been achieved?
- Were the activities carried out as originally planned?
- What were reasons for achievement or non-achievement of objectives?
- What are the limitations/opportunities inherent in the approach?
- How well do the achieved results compare to quality standards (MSF guidelines, WHO standards, etc.)
- What can be done to make the intervention more effective?
- How cost-efficient is the program, in terms of the qualitative and quantitative outputs achieved as a result of the inputs?
- How does the programme ‘cost per beneficiary’ compare to other similar programs?
- In what ways has MSF utilised available ‘pooled’ financial and logistics arrangements to contribute to the efficient use of resources and economies of scale? What improvements can be made?
- Is the programme structure and staffing efficient? How does it compare to other similar programs?
- To which extent do the activities reach the target population?
- Are there any factors that hinder us in reaching the population most in need?
- To which extent do beneficiaries have access to project services?
- Is any one group excluded from the services?
- Does the programme make a difference?
- Can a contribution to changes in the health status be attributed to the project?
- What do beneficiaries and other stakeholders affected by the intervention perceive to be the effects of the intervention on themselves?
- Does our presence have any unforeseen positive or negative impact?
- What long-term problems can be identified, and how have they been taken into consideration?
- What local capacities and resources have been identified? How does the project connect with these?
TOOLS AND METHODOLOGY PROPOSED
- Review and analysis of project documents
- Meeting/discussion/interviews with key-team members at HQ and field levels
- Meeting/discussion/interviews with key-authorities
- Meeting/discussion/interviews with patients/former patients
- Natural group discussions or focus groups
Examples of documentation; Copro, AAP, CPP, Project documents (narrative and logframe)
Situation reports, Trip reports, Medical reports
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATIONNumber of evaluators
Timing of the evaluation
Required amount of time (Days);
- For preparation (Days)
- For field visits (Days)
- For interviews (Days)
- For writing up report (Days)
Total time required (Days)
Notes: Any additional criteria relevant to the selection of evaluation consultants
PROFILE /REQUIREMENTS: EVALUATOR(S)
- Medical and/or epidemiology background
- Language requirements: English and Portuguese (Fluent)
- Experience inn HIV/Aids programing
- Evaluation competencies
Terms of Reference Template DraftPage 1 of 3
1) All red text is for guidance of the ToR and can be removed.
2) All comments can also be removed.
[TM2]Grounding the evaluation in a medical humanitarian context from which the evaluation question is created. In some cases the link to specific medical humanitarian issues can be more abstract, such as evaluations of headquarters processes etc. however this red thread should be identified.
[TM3]Explain the “Why” by establishing where the need for the evaluation exists and how the outcomes will benefit the organisation and ultimately contribute to improving the quality of MSF’s medical humanitarian act.
[TM4]The aim with the evaluation; the overall objective should frame the evaluation; and set the limits in time, in geography, in operational aspects to be evaluated, etc. Ideally the objective should also state what the evaluation will be used for and for whom it is intended (internal/external).
[TM5]The specific objectives of the evaluation can be broken down to include specific areas of interest, outputs and expectations. It gives details of what the evaluation is expected to achieve and suggests evaluation questions. Here the one asking for the evaluation is the best in place to define what questions needs to be answered. The “sum” of the evaluation specific objectives should to a large extent equal the overall objective. Below are some examples of questions.
[TM6]Concrete outputs the evaluation process should aim to achieve. The “sum” of the expected results should be able to achieve the specific objectives.