Terms of Reference for Evaluation

1. Evaluation Summary

2. Table  of Acronyms

• OPDs: Organisations of Persons with Disabilities

3. Project Description (max 1 page)

Overall objective. The social and economic well-being of women in Peshawar, Nowshera , Mirpurkhas and Karachi Malir districts of Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa (KP) and Sindh provinces has improved.

Project goal. 12,775 women with and without disabilities in 40 villages of the four districts use social security mechanisms or generate their own income through employment, self-employment or small business.

Context. Women in Pakistan, especially poorer and rural women and women with disabilities, face patriarchal norms and structural barriers: weak self-organization, limited access to social protection (including lack of CNICs), low income-generation skills (female labour force participation of about 21.5% nationally and about 14% in KP) and limited access to financial services (only about 7% of women hold formal bank accounts or loans). The project responds to these four barriers.

 Higher-level indicators. Household income of women in micro-enterprise or VET (800) has increased; share of women who feel sufficiently involved in household financial decisions increased by 25% (KP) and 40% (Sindh) against baseline; at least 50% of 160 KP and 30% of 160 Sindh trained officials make services gender- and disability-sensitive by the end of year 2.

Target groups. Direct: 

• women with and without disabilities, 

• 3,200 men and boys from the families of women with and without disabilities

• 180  women involved in self-help groups (SHGs) and Community Protection Committees (CPCs) leaders 

• 320 government officials

• Up to 20,000 direct beneficiary contacts, of which about 12,775 women expected to benefit concretely). 

Indirect: about 42,900 family and community members.

Locations. Peshawar and Nowshera districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province; Mirpurkhas and Karachi Malir districts in Sindh province, 10 villages per district. Mirpurkhas was affected by the 2022 floods (early recovery context).

4.  Evaluation Objective and Intended Use 

Objective. To assess the extent to which the project achieved its objectives, indicators and targets at project completion, how and for whom change occurred, and what can be learned for future programming.

The project ended on 31 December 2026 and a final evaluation is a contractual requirement under the bengo grant. Results are needed for the final report to bengo/BMZ, for accountability to women, communities and partners, and to shape a possible nationwide programme building on Punjab, Sindh and KP experience.

Intended use.

• Accountability to the donor and to target groups.

• Learning on what worked in combining economic empowerment (VET, grants, tools, microfinance) with GBV prevention and social protection, including for women with disabilities.

• Evidence for advocacy with government (social welfare, police, TVET, State Bank-linked financial inclusion initiatives) and OPDs/OWDs.

• Input for the exit strategy follow-up and sustainability of SHGs and CPCs.

5. Scope of the evaluation

Time period: 1 November 2022 – 31 Dec 2026.

Geographical coverage: all four districts (Peshawar, Nowshera, Mirpurkhas, Karachi Malir). Primary data will be collected in a representative sample of 3 to 5 of the 40 project villages i-e 12 to 20, ensuring coverage of both provinces, urban/peri-urban Malir and rural districts, and flood-affected Mirpurkhas. The sample is to be proposed in the inception report and agreed with CBM and Bedari.

Interventions: all four sub-goals and their measures (see section 2), plus project management, monitoring and partnership aspects.

Target groups: women with and without disabilities (SHG/CPC members, VET and business trainees, grant and tool recipients, ID card and bank account beneficiaries, loan recipients); men and boys reached; government officials and service providers; DPOs/OWDs; VET institutes; microfinance institutions; Bedari and CBM staff.

6. Limitations

Security and access: security conditions and movement restrictions in parts of KP (Peshawar, Nowshera) and Karachi Malir may restrict field access; female enumerators and mahram/chaperone requirements may affect women's participation. A mixed in-person and remote approach (phone interviews, virtual meetings with officials and institutions) may be needed. CBM's security officer will advise on access.

Time since implementation: the project has closed, so some staff may have left; the consultants should account for recall bias and for staff turnover.

Climate/seasonal factors: Rains/ floods may affect travel and availability of respondents, especially in Mirpurkhas.

Data and documentation: baseline-to-end-line comparability depends on the baseline sample and instruments; disaggregation by disability (Washington Group Short Set) may be incomplete in earlier monitoring data. Consultants should flag data gaps rather than assume them.

Budget and time: the evaluation budget is limited, so the sample size and number of field days must be realistic and justified.

Data consistency in project documents: some target figures differ across sections of the proposal (for example, the number of women expected to obtain ID cards is 575 in the project goal indicator but 2,300 under sub-goal 2). The consultants will be provided the valid targets with CBM and Bedari during the inception phase, using the approved logfram and the latest reports.

7. Target audience and learning

Primary users: CBM Country Office and Bedari management and project teams.

Other users: bengo/Engagement Global (BMZ), provincial government departments (Social Welfare, Women Development, Police Gender Equality Unit/Women Complaint Desk, TEVTA/vocational institutions), DPOs/OWDs, SHGs and CPCs, microfinance institutions, and other CBM partners.

Use of results: the full report goes to CBM, Bedari and the donor; a plain-language, accessible summary (large print, easy-read, audio/video or local-language version such as Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto, as needed) goes to communities, SHGs, CPCs and government partners.

Learning role of the team: the evaluation team will facilitate a participatory reflection with Bedari, CBM and community representatives, and a stakeholder validation or wrap-up workshop so that findings and recommendations are discussed

8. Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will follow the OECD DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability) and CBM's Programme Quality Principles (equality and inclusion, gender equality, safeguarding, advocacy, accessibility and universal design). Priority will be given to effectiveness, impact and sustainability, which are the most important for accountability and future programming. The questions below are guiding and may be refined in the inception report. All questions require analysis disaggregated by gender, age and disability status, and by province/district.

The evaluation of also assess the following

RELEVANCE - •To what extent did the project design respond to the priorities and needs of women with and without disabilities, men and boys, and local institutions in the four districts, as identified in the feasibility study and consultations?

•Were the selected target groups and villages appropriate, and did the project Identify disability groups that may have been excluded, such as women with psychosocial, intellectual, sensory or multiple disabilities

,  and women survivors of GBV?

•Were the activities (for example VET trades, start-up grants, tool kits) aligned with local market opportunities and women's own priorities, as identified in the market study?

COHERENCE To what extent were the project's design and delivery consistent with CEDAW, the CRPD, the 2030 Agenda and national policies (for example Pakistan Vision 2025, Ehsaas/BISP, provincial social protection strategies, State Bank of Pakistan's Banking on Equality and accessible banking circulars)?

•How did the project complement or duplicate other initiatives (GIZ/NAVTTC TVET reform, Sarhad Rural Support Programme, Sindh Rural Support Organization, Kamyab Jawan, government interest-free loan schemes)?

•How effective were the partnerships with government bodies (Gender Equality Unit/Police, Women Development, Social Welfare, National Data base and Registration Authority (NADRA), OPDs/OWDs and microfinance institutions?

EFFECTIVENESS - •To what extent were the outputs, outcomes and indicators of the four sub-goals achieved against the logframe and baseline (including 40 SHGs, 20 CPCs, ID cards, VET and business training, start-up grants, tool kits, employment, micro-enterprises, bank accounts, microfinance loans, referral mechanisms, officials trained)?

•Were the results achieved equally for women with and without disabilities and across the two provinces? What factors enabled or hindered achievement?

•How effective were the SHGs and CPCs in supporting women and responding to GBV cases, and how functional are the referral mechanisms?

•To what extent did the training of men and boys and the awareness campaigns (radio, street theatre) change attitudes and support for women's economic participation?

•How effective was the project in improving women's participation in household decision-making and use of household income?

Were monitoring data used to adjust implementation? Did adaptive management (for example during Emergency) ?

EFFICIENCY - Were activities delivered on time and within budget? What were the main causes of delays or deviations (for example regulatory approvals, security, inflation)?

Was resource allocation appropriate and cost-effective through the the twin track approach measurable: Track1 (Targeted Unit Costs): The evaluation will assess the appropriateness and unit cost per beneficiary for targeted interventions, specifically analyzing start-up grants, tool kits, ID card support, training, assistive devices, personal assistance, and OPD strengthening.

Track 2 (Mainstream Inclusion Premium): Financial efficiency will be measured regarding the additional costs of inclusion—such as accessibility infrastructure, personal assistants, and targeted accommodations for women with disabilities—needed to make community programs inclusive.

 •How efficient were management, monitoring, procurement (including vehicle and office arrangements) and coordination between Bedari HQ, provincial offices and CBM?

IMPACT - •What changes (intended and unintended, positive and negative) have occurred in women's income, savings, employment, bank account use, voice and decision-making, mobility and social status?

•Were impacts different for women with disabilities, for women in KP versus Sindh, or for different age groups? Why?

•How did social norms around disability and gender, safety concerns and the wider environment affect outcomes? Did the project contribute to any change in norms among men and boys, families, communities and officials?

•What changes in response to GBV and access to social protection can be attributed to the project? SUSTAINABILITY 

Are SHGs and CPCs still functioning, meeting regularly and supporting women through a check list of functional criteria; internal organisation, regular meetings, capacity to support women and, for CPCs, capacity on GBV ? Which financial and institutional arrangements (membership fees, linkages to local government and service providers) keep them going? Check sustainability through applying the 4As Availability, Accessibility, Affordability, Acceptability +Quality framework as a common analytical lens. 

To what extent did relevant livelihood, social protection, financial, vocational training, protection, and referral services meet the CBID criteria of availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability, and quality for women with diverse disabilities?

Are micro-enterprises and employment still viable (survival rate, income) and are women continuing to use bank accounts, savings and credit? As the enterprises and startups began during different time of the project, Evaluation team needs to report survival by cohort and time since support, and to indicate which cohorts are too recent for sustainability to be assessed?

Have government and institutional partners integrated gender- and disability-sensitive practices (for example women's desks, referral protocols, accessible VET institutes)?

How well was the exit strategy implemented, and what are the risks to sustainability?

Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults

To what extent were safeguarding mechanisms (code of conduct, complaints and feedback mechanisms, referral for safeguarding incidents) established, known to participants and staff, used and adhered to?

Were GBV survivors protected from harm and re-victimization (do-no-harm, confidentiality)?

Equality and inclusion / gender equality

To what extent were women and men, persons with and without disabilities actively involved in all stages of the project cycle, and how did each group benefit?

Was the 15% target for women with disabilities in VET and the share of women with disabilities in other activities met? Were reasonable accommodations provided and effective?

Was output and outcome data disaggregated by gender, age and disability (using the Washington Group Short Set)?

Accessibility and universal design; advocacy

Were venues, materials, transport, banking and training accessible? What were the results of the accessibility audits of the eight VET institutes and any follow-up advocacy?

To what extent did the project contribute to advocacy results (for example with the Gender Equality Unit, social protection authorities, microfinance institutions and State Bank-linked initiatives) and to strengthening DPOs/OWDs?

Humanitarian imperative (Mirpurkhas flood-affected context)

To what extent has the project contributed to disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction (DiDRR) and resilience, including accessible early warning systems, contingency planning, preparedness measures, and the meaningful participation of OPDs in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery processes?

Inclusive communities

To what extent have the 40 project communities become more inclusive of persons with disabilities, including persons with different types of disabilities and support requirements?

To what extent do persons with disabilities participate meaningfully and exercise influence in community structures, local decision-making, livelihood activities, social life, protection mechanisms, and public services?

What attitudinal, environmental, communication, institutional, economic, and gender-related barriers to participation have been reduced, and which barriers remain?

Did the project apply a twin-track approach combining targeted support to women with disabilities with measurable action by community stakeholders and duty bearers to remove barriers?

How effectively did self-help groups, Community Protection Committees, OPDs, government bodies, service providers, families, and other community actors work together to build inclusive communities using local resources?

Which persons with disabilities were not reached or did not participate, and why?

Did persons with disabilities and their representative organisations influence decisions, monitor services, and hold community structures and duty bearers accountable?

 Lessons Learned, Good Practices, and Recommendations

Based on the findings of the evaluation and the responses to the preceding questions, the assessment should identify key good practices and lessons learned, as well as formulate recommendations for both Bedari and CBM.

Recommendations may address the following areas:

- Strategic recommendations for Bedari and CBM

- Practices and approaches that should be avoided in future programming.

- Successful interventions, methodologies, and innovations that should be replicated, scaled up, or more widely disseminated.

- Recommendations on programmatic and intervention decisions

- Recommendations on partnership, arrangements and procedures

- Recommendations on Operational Modalities

- Recommendations on the Sustainability of Key Activities

- Recommendations on Knowledge Management and Capitalisation

9. Methodology

The evaluation will use a mixed-methods, theory-based design that compares end-line data with baseline values and reconstructs the project's theory of change. 

Step 1: Preparatory work (document review, online calls, and office visits)

Step 2: Project visits and data collection (interviews, meetings, questionnaires, workshops)

Step 3: Debriefing and presentation of preliminary findings and recommendations

Final Deliverable: Draft and final evaluation report incorporating feedback from stakeholders.

The evaluators will propose the detailed design in the inception report. Expected elements:

Desk review of the project proposal, logframe, baseline, feasibility study, market study, annual and donor reports, monitoring data, training records, and beneficiary databases.

Quantitative end-line survey of a representative sample of beneficiary women (with a statistically justified sample size, stratified by province/district and disability status, and comparable to the baseline sample), covering income, employment, enterprise status, decision-making, ID card and bank account ownership, access to loans, and participation in SHGs/CPCs.

Qualitative methods: focus group discussions (separate for women, women with disabilities, men and boys), key informant interviews (Bedari and CBM staff, SHG and CPC leaders, government officials, police gender desks, VET institutes, microfinance institutions, DPOs/OWDs), in-depth interviews or case studies with GBV survivors where safe and ethical, and most-significant-change or outcome harvesting stories.

Observation and verification of SHGs, CPCs, referral mechanisms, enterprises and accessibility measures.

Triangulation of all sources, with explicit attention to attribution, contribution and external factors.

Evaluation team to verify, on a sample drawn from the beneficiary database, that grants and tool kits received were used (including assistive devices for women with disabilities)

Mandatory mechanisms. The evaluation must be:

Participatory and inclusive: A wide range of women, men, girls and boys with and without disabilities are consulted/ involved in data collection, analysis and the formulation of recommendations.

Safe: compliance with safeguarding of children and adults at risk, including a referral protocol for disclosures and sensitivity when discussing GBV.

Disaggregated: The evaluation will assess the experiences and outcomes of persons with diverse disabilities, including physical, sensory, intellectual, psychosocial, and multiple disabilities, and persons requiring different levels of support. Sampling and qualitative methods must identify groups that were under-represented, excluded, or insufficiently reached. Analysis must consider intersections with gender, age, poverty, geography, displacement, and other relevant markers of disadvantage.

Secure and ethical: informed consent, data privacy and protection, anonymization and secure storage.

Inclusive accommodations. Female enumerators and facilitators; accessible venues; sign language interpretation and other communication support; additional time; transport support and personal assistants where needed; local languages (Urdu, Sindhi, Pashto and others).

Deciding the final methodology. The team leader will submit a written Inception Report with the methodology, sampling, tools, ethics and safeguarding plan and work plan. It will be discussed with Bedari and CBM, and approved by CBM before field work starts.

Participant involvement and feedback. Beneficiaries and stakeholders will be consulted during data collection and invited to validation sessions. Findings and recommendations will be fed back to communities, SHGs and CPCs in accessible formats, and presented at a final stakeholder workshop (see section 10).

10. Management Responsibilities and Evaluation Team 

Commissioning responsibility

CBM Country Office Pakistan commissions and contracts the evaluation, in consultation with Bedari and CBM Pakistan. CBM approves the TOR, selection of consultants, inception report and final report; Bedari provides input to the TOR, methodology and reports.

Management Responsibility and Logistics

CBM Country Office: contract management, quality assurance, review of reports, coordination with CBM Pakistan and bengo requirements.

Bedari: provides documents and data, beneficiary lists and contact information, introduces the team to communities and officials, and supports field logistics (booking interviews, community mobilization).

Consultants: own travel, accommodation, transport, recruitment and training of enumerators, and data collection. Costs are covered under the contract (see section 12).

Disability-inclusive venues, interpreters and accommodations: consultants arrange these in consultation with Bedari and local OPDs/OWDs, and budget for them.

Evaluation Team

Team leader: advanced degree in social sciences, development studies, gender studies or a related field; at least 8–10 years of experience in evaluating development projects, preferably livelihoods/women's economic empowerment and GBV; proven experience with OECD DAC criteria and mixed methods; experience with bengo/BMZ or comparable donor evaluations is an advantage.

Technical members: knowledge of disability inclusion, Inclusive Community Development/ Community Based Inclusive Development (CBID) and gender, women's livelihoods and microfinance, social protection and GBV response; quantitative data analysis skills.

Local expertise: knowledge of the contexts of Sindh and KP, fluency in Urdu and relevant local languages (Sindhi, Pashto), and experience working with women in conservative communities.

Composition: gender-balanced team including women, and, ideally, persons with disabilities; a DPO/OWD representative or a person with a disability must participate as a team member or an evaluation advisory group member.

Soft skills: participatory facilitation, ethical conduct, sensitivity to survivors of violence, and strong writing and presentation skills.

All team members, including enumerators and interpreters, must sign CBM's or Bedari's Code of Conduct, Child Safeguarding Policy and data protection commitments.

11. Deliverables

All deliverables will be in English, with the executive summary also in Urdu where requested, and must follow the standard CBM evaluation report format.

Inception Report (methodology, tools, sampling, work plan, safeguarding and ethics plan) due by: 27 Nov, 2026

Draft Report due by: Dec 10,2026

Finalized Report due by: Dec 17,2026 of consolidated CBM/Bedari comments)

Other expected outputs:

• Presentation of initial findings (debriefing) to Bedari and CBM at the end of the field phase.

• Stakeholder validation or wrap-up workshop with community, government and DPO representatives.

• A short, accessible summary of findings in plain language and local language(s) for communities and partners.

• Annexes: all data collection tools, questionnaires, consent forms, sample frame, cleaned anonymized datasets, interview lists, and field notes.

• Recommendations for future programming and a lessons-learned/good practice section, including inputs for a possible follow-on or nationwide programme.

The report must include a results matrix against baseline and logframe indicators, disaggregated by gender, age, disability and province/district.

12. Evaluation Schedule

Insert expected time frame for the entire evaluation, including time for preparation and in-country briefings. You may consider a planning meeting (online) that is scheduled weeks before the field work, durign which methodology and sampling is discussed. 

(Note: Calculating number of days required will allow you to estimate the rough cost based on daily professional and logistic fees. For preparation of evaluation budget pls consult this document.) 

13. Payment Mode

Payments will follow the country-specific CBM contractor agreement and are linked to deliverables:

•20% on approval of the Inception Report

•40% on submission of the Draft Report

•40% on approval of the Final Report and annexes

Costs and responsibilities:

•Logistic costs (local travel, accommodation, enumerators, venue rental, interpreters, accessibility accommodations) are included in the consultant's financial proposal, or reimbursed upon proper invoices, as agreed in the contract.

•Applicable taxes (including VAT/withholding tax) are added either by the consultant or by CBM in line with local requirements.

•No total budget is stated in this TOR.

14.  Applications

Please insert here: 

Expressions of Interest must be submitted by 19 Nov, 2026 to [email protected] and shall include:

Brief description of the consultancy firm/consultant/team

Detailed CVs of each proposed team member along with Add list of previous work carried out in relation with the requested consultancy

Understanding of this TOR and proposed methodology

Availability of the team and proposed schedule

Financial proposal

Only complete applications will be considered. CBM may ask for references and examples of previous reports. CBM reserves the right to terminate the contract if the agreed team members are unavailable at the start of the evaluation and no adequate replacement is provided. Each team member, including interpreters and enumerators, must fully comply with and sign CBM's or Bedari's Code of Conduct and Child Safeguarding Policy, and the commitment to data security and privacy.

15.  Documents 

The following documents will be provided to the consultants after contract signature:

Approved project proposal and project budget

Logical framework/impact matrix and theory of change

Feasibility study and baseline study reports

Market study, microfinance mapping/study, service directory and referral protocol

Annual and final donor reports, monitoring reports, training records and beneficiary databases

Any review or annual steering meeting reports

CBM safeguarding and Code of Conduct documents, and the CBM standard evaluation report format

Washington Group Short Set guidance

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Analysis for Evaluation. 

Y

Please list all current and potential external and internal stakeholders including beneficiaries that contribute or influence the success of the proposed project(s) being evaluated.