Terms of Reference for Endline Evaluation of the Enhancing Food and Nutrition Security in the Southern Province of Rwanda(Kungahara Project)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Endline Evaluation of the
Enhancing Food and Nutrition Security in the Southern Province of Rwanda
(Kungahara Project)

(2024-2026)

Implemented by Tearfund Rwanda in partnership with Association Mwana Ukundwa (AMU)
Funded by the European Development Fund

1. Introduction

These Terms of Reference (ToR) deliver the framework for the Endline Evaluation of the “Enhancing Food and Nutrition Security in the Southern Province of Rwanda” (Kungahara) Project. The endline evaluation will assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended outcomes and contributed to higher-level changes in food and nutrition security, agricultural productivity, household income, sustainable agricultural practices and resilience. It will also determine the likelihood that project benefits, systems, practices, partnerships and capacities will be sustained after the end of project assist.

2. Background

Tearfund is a Christian international organization working globally to end poverty and injustice and to restore dignity and hope in poor and vulnerable communities. Tearfund works through local partners, churches and communities and supports resilience, advocacy and sustainable development.

Association Mwana Ukundwa (AMU) is a non-profit Christian local organization in Rwanda committed to improving the wellbeing of vulnerable children and families through education, socio-economic empowerment, health-related assist and community development, while promoting self-reliance and sustainable development.

3. Project Situational Analysis

Agriculture is central to livelihoods and food security in Rwanda, and the Kungahara project was designed to respond to persistent constraints affecting smallholder farmers in Gisagara and Nyaruguru districts, including limited access to quality inputs and technical assist, post-harvest losses, weak market linkages, land fragmentation, limited value addition and nutrition-related vulnerabilities.

The three-year project (2024-2026) therefore focuses on strengthening sustainable production, post-harvest management, agribusiness and financial inclusion, market engagement and nutrition-sensitive agriculture in order to enhance food and nutrition security and food systems resilience.

3.1 Project Overview and Target Groups

3.2 Project Objectives

Overall Objective: To promote food and nutrition security and food systems resilience in Gisagara and Nyaruguru districts.

1. Increased adoption of sustainable food production practices for smallholder farmers in Gisagara and Nyaruguru districts.
2. Improved productivity and incomes for smallholder farmers, including women-led and men-led SHGs and cooperatives.
3. Improved dietary intake among smallholder farmers.

3.3 Project Target Groups

The project targets 10,000 households (8,000 female-led and 2,000 male-led), organized into 500 SHGs (250 in Gisagara and 250 in Nyaruguru), including 20 cooperatives and at least 80% women-led SHGs. The target population includes:

• 600 households with persons living with disabilities;
• 300 households with persons living with HIV;
• 60 community volunteers (10 Trainers of Trainers and 50 Community Facilitators); and
• 150 households most affected by malnutrition, identified among smallholder farmers.

3.4 Project Results Framework

4. About the Assignment

Tearfund Rwanda seeks to recruit a qualified consulting firm to perform the final endline evaluation of the EU-Kungahara Project. The evaluation will deliver an independent assessment of the project’s performance over the full implementation period and establish the final values of the project results framework indicators.

The endline evaluation will focus on final outcome achievement, contribution to impact, sustainability of benefits, unintended results, lessons learned, accountability to stakeholders, and evidence for future programming.

4.1 Overall Objective of the Endline Evaluation

The overall objective is to determine the extent to which the Kungahara Project achieved its intended results and contributed to sustainable changes in food and nutrition security, agricultural productivity, income, resilience, nutrition practices and livelihoods among target smallholder farmers in Gisagara and Nyaruguru districts.

4.2 Specific Objectives

1. Measure final achievement of project impact, outcome and key output indicators and compare endline results with baseline, midterm values and project targets.
2. Assess the magnitude and nature of changes in sustainable agricultural production, crop yields, post-harvest management, value addition, market access, agribusiness participation, household agricultural income and dietary practices.
3. Assess the project’s contribution to food and nutrition security and food systems resilience, including intended and unintended positive or negative effects.
4. Assess changes in Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Behaviours (KAP-B) related to good agricultural practices, climate-smart/sustainable agriculture, post-harvest management, agribusiness, financial services, nutrition-sensitive agriculture and dietary behaviours.
5. Evaluate the project against the OECD DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.
6. Assess the sustainability of project-supported SHGs, cooperatives, community facilitation mechanisms, financial linkages, market relationships, productive practices, nutrition behaviours and local ownership after project closure.
7. detect lessons learned, good practices, scalable approaches, remaining gaps and evidence-based recommendations for future food security, nutrition, livelihoods and resilience programming.
8. Assess improvements in food and nutrition security, dietary practices, and overall wellbeing among the 150 households identified with malnutrition cases.

4.3 Scope of the Endline Evaluation

The evaluation will cover the entire project implementation period (2024-2026) and all project areas in Gisagara and Nyaruguru districts. It will assess the performance of the main value chains supported by the project, including Irish potatoes, maize and beans, and examine changes in production, productivity, post-harvest practices, value addition, market engagement, agricultural income, financial access and household nutrition.

The evaluation will include direct beneficiaries, SHG and cooperative leaders, community facilitators, Trainers of Trainers, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV, households affected by malnutrition, traders/market actors, financial service providers where relevant, local authorities, project staff and implementing partners.

5. Evaluation Approach and Framework

5.1 OECD DAC Evaluation Criteria

The endline evaluation will use the six OECD DAC evaluation criteria as the overarching analytical framework. Each criterion will be applied to the project’s Theory of Change, results framework and implementation experience.

5.2 KAP-B (Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices and Behaviours) Model

The evaluation will apply a KAP-B framework to assess whether project-supported learning and capacity building translated into sustained behaviour change. The analysis should distinguish between what beneficiaries know, what they believe or value, what they report doing, and what behaviours can be demonstrated or corroborated through observation, records or triangulation.

5.3 Contribution and Outcome-Focused Analysis

The evaluation should not assume that all observed changes were caused solely by the project. It should assess the project’s contribution by testing the Theory of Change, examining the sequence from activities and outputs to outcomes, comparing baseline, midterm and endline evidence, triangulating beneficiary and stakeholder accounts, and identifying important external factors such as climate change, market prices, government programmes, input availability and other interventions.

6. Key Evaluation Questions

1. Results and outcomes: What final results were achieved against each impact, outcome and key output indicator? Which targets were met, exceeded or not met, and why?
2. Agricultural adoption: To what extent have farmers adopted and sustained good agricultural practices, sustainable land management, improved post-harvest handling, value addition and relevant technologies?
3. Productivity and production: How have yield per hectare and total production changed for priority crops, and how do endline values compare with baseline, midterm and project targets?
4. Income and livelihoods: To what extent has household annual agricultural income changed? What evidence exists of improved agribusiness activity, market access, savings, credit use, investment and livelihood resilience?
5. Nutrition and food security: How have household dietary diversity, meal frequency and food security changed? Are nutrition-sensitive agriculture practices and kitchen gardens being sustained?
6. KAP-B: What changes occurred in knowledge, attitudes, practices and sustained behaviours, and where are gaps between knowledge and actual adoption?
7. Gender and inclusion: Were benefits equitably distributed among women, men, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV and vulnerable households? Did the project influence women’s participation, decision-making, access to productive resources or economic opportunities?
8. Impact and unintended effects: What significant positive or negative, intended or unintended effects can be identified at household, SHG, cooperative or community level?
9. Sustainability: Which outcomes, institutions, behaviours, assets, capacities, market/finance relationships and community mechanisms are likely to continue without direct project assist?
10. Ownership and exit: Do SHGs, cooperatives, community facilitators, local authorities and service providers have sufficient ownership, capacity, incentives and resources to sustain results?
11. Efficiency and value for money: Were project resources, partnerships and delivery approaches used efficiently in relation to the results achieved?
12. Learning and scalability: Which approaches worked best, for whom and under what conditions? What should be replicated, adapted, discontinued or strengthened in future programming?

7. Methodology

The endline evaluation will use a participatory mixed-methods design combining quantitative and qualitative evidence. The methodology must allow robust comparison with the project baseline and midterm evaluate while also generating explanatory evidence on how, why and for whom change occurred.

• Desk evaluate of the project proposal, Theory of Change, logframe, baseline study, midterm evaluate, monitoring datasets, annual/quarterly reports, training records, SHG and cooperative records, agricultural production data, financial linkage records and relevant district and national documents.
• Quantitative household/farmer survey using indicators and question wording that are comparable with baseline and midterm measures wherever methodologically appropriate.
• Qualitative methods including Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews, outcome-focused case studies, Most Significant Change-type stories where useful, and direct field observations.
• evaluate and verification of SHG/cooperative records, production records, savings/loan or business records and market linkage evidence where available.
• Triangulation across quantitative data, qualitative narratives, routine monitoring evidence and observed practice.
• Disaggregation by district, sex/household headship and other relevant vulnerability categories, subject to adequate sample size and ethical safeguards.

7.1 Sampling

The consultant will propose a statistically justified sampling design that is representative of the project population and supports comparison with the baseline and midterm. The sampling frame should account for the 500 SHGs across Gisagara and Nyaruguru and ensure adequate representation of women, men and relevant vulnerable groups. Where possible, the evaluation should revisit the same sampling structure or comparable households used in earlier studies to strengthen longitudinal comparability.

The inception report must present the sample size calculation, confidence level, margin of error, design effect where applicable, non-response allowance, selection procedures, replacement rules, qualitative sampling, and planned disaggregation.

7.2 Quantitative Analysis

Quantitative analysis should use STATA and include frequencies, proportions, means, medians as appropriate, confidence intervals and statistically appropriate tests of change between baseline, midterm and endline where comparable data permit. Final values must be calculated for all relevant logframe indicators, with clear denominators and disaggregation. Crop production, yield, saving, loans and income analysis should use transparent calculation methods and clearly document any assumptions.

7.3 Qualitative and Contribution Analysis

Qualitative analysis should be systematically coded and used to explain quantitative patterns, detect mechanisms of change, document unintended effects and assess sustainability. The evaluator should test alternative explanations and clearly distinguish between evidence of association, plausible project contribution and claims of direct attribution.

7.4 Sustainability Assessment

Sustainability should be assessed across institutional, technical, infrastructure, behavioural, economic/financial, social and environmental dimensions. At minimum, the evaluation should examine whether SHGs and cooperatives remain functional; whether community facilitators can continue assist; whether beneficiaries can keep practices without subsidized inputs; whether finance and market linkages remain active; whether nutrition and agricultural behaviours are embedded; whether local authorities/service providers have ownership; if infrastructure will be sustainably maintained, and which external risks may threaten continuation.

8. Evaluation Quality, Ethics and Safeguarding

The consultant(s) will uphold high ethical and professional standards throughout design, data collection, analysis, reporting and dissemination. Participation must be voluntary and based on informed consent, with appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality and anonymity.

• Apply Tearfund safeguarding and anti-fraud requirements throughout the assignment.
• Use gender-sensitive, disability-inclusive and culturally appropriate data collection approaches.
• Protect respondents from harm, coercion and unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information.
• Comply with applicable Rwanda data privacy and protection requirements and secure ethical approval where required.
• Establish data quality assurance procedures, including enumerator training, tool piloting, field supervision, back-checks/spot-checks, data validation and secure data management.
• Disclose limitations and potential sources of bias, including recall bias, seasonality, non-response and comparability constraints.

9. Consultant Responsibilities

• create and submit an inception report, evaluation matrix, sampling strategy, data collection tools and detailed work plan.
• evaluate baseline and midterm instruments and keep indicator comparability while improving questions where necessary for endline outcome, impact and sustainability measurement.
• Recruit, train and supervise enumerators and execute field-level quality assurance.
• Collect, clean, oversee and analyze quantitative and qualitative data using appropriate professional software.
• Produce an indicator performance table comparing baseline, midterm, endline, target and level of achievement.
• Apply OECD DAC criteria, KAP-B analysis and contribution-focused interpretation consistently across the report.
• Present preliminary findings to Tearfund, AMU and relevant stakeholders for validation.
• Submit all datasets, code/syntax, qualitative coding outputs, tools, transcripts/notes where agreed, and final reports in editable formats.
• Ensure confidentiality and use all evaluation data solely for purposes agreed under the assignment.

10. Key Deliverables

1. Inception Report (maximum 15 pages excluding annexes), including evaluation matrix, OECD DAC and KAP-B framework, methodology, sampling, tools, analysis plan, quality assurance, ethics, limitations and detailed work plan.
2. Finalized quantitative and qualitative data collection tools, programmed electronic survey forms and field protocols.
3. Clean quantitative dataset, data dictionary/codebook, qualitative database/coding framework and analysis syntax/output files.
4. Indicator Performance Table showing baseline, midterm, endline, target, percentage/level of achievement, disaggregation and explanatory comments.
5. Draft Endline Evaluation Report with an executive summary, methodology, findings by outcome and OECD DAC criterion, KAP-B analysis, impact/contribution analysis, sustainability assessment, conclusions, lessons and recommendations.
6. Validation Workshop/Meeting and a clear presentation of findings, conclusions and recommendations.
7. Final Endline Evaluation Report in English, incorporating stakeholder feedback and submitted in editable MS Word format.
8. Updated Final Project Logframe populated with verified endline indicator values.
9. Five-page Summary Report for wider dissemination.
10. Annex package including ToR, tools, sampling framework, list of stakeholder categories consulted, references, detailed statistical tables, case studies and other agreed technical appendices.

10.1 Expected Structure of the Endline Report

• Cover page and acknowledgements;
• Executive summary (maximum 3 pages);
• Introduction, project background and evaluation objectives;
• Evaluation methodology and limitations;
• Project performance and indicator achievement: baseline, midterm, endline and target comparison;
• Findings by the three project outcomes, and outputs 
• OECD DAC assessment: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability;
• KAP-B findings and behaviour change analysis;
• Gender equality, disability and social inclusion findings;
• Contribution to impact and unintended effects;
• Sustainability and exit-readiness assessment;
• Conclusions, lessons learned, good practices and prioritized recommendations;
• Annexes.

11. Assignment Timeline

The endline evaluation is expected to be completed within approximately 30 working days. The exact start date and detailed schedule will be agreed with the selected consultant(s). The proposed work plan should allow adequate time for inception, tool finalization, training/piloting, field data collection, analysis, draft reporting, validation and finalization.

12. Required Evaluation Team and Qualifications

12.1 Team Leader - Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Expert

• Master’s degree in Monitoring and Evaluation, Development Studies, Economics, Social Sciences, Statistics or a relevant discipline.
• At least seven years of demonstrated experience leading complex evaluations of development programmes.
• Strong experience with mixed methods, results frameworks, Theory of Change, OECD DAC criteria, impact/outcome evaluation and sustainability assessment.
• Experience in agriculture, food security, nutrition, livelihoods or resilience programming in Rwanda or comparable contexts.
• Excellent analytical, facilitation and report-writing skills.

12.2 Agriculture - Agribusiness and Livelihoods Expert

• Master’s degree in Agriculture, Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics or related field.
• At least five years’ experience in smallholder agriculture, value chains, post-harvest management, market systems and livelihoods.
• Demonstrated experience assessing agricultural productivity, income, sustainable agriculture and farmer organizations.

12.3 Quantitative - Data Analysis Expert

• Degree in Statistics, Data Science, Demography, Economics or related field; Master’s preferred.
• At least five years’ experience in survey design, sampling, data quality assurance, statistical analysis and visualization.
• Proficiency in STATA, R, SPSS or equivalent and in electronic data collection platforms such as KoboToolbox/ODK.

12.4 Additional Expertise (Desirable)

• Nutrition and food security expertise, including household dietary assessment;
• Gender equality and social inclusion expertise, including disability and HIV-sensitive programming;
• Qualitative research expertise and systematic coding/analysis;
• Experienced enumerators with knowledge of rural data collection and research ethics.

13. Application Requirements

• Cover letter expressing interest and suitability for the assignment.
• Technical proposal describing the evaluation approach, OECD DAC and KAP-B application, methodology, sampling, analysis plan, work plan and proposed team.
• Financial proposal and budget in Rwandan Francs.
• Detailed CVs of the proposed team with clear roles and at least three relevant referees.
• Valid tax and statutory compliance documentation where applicable.
• RDB certificates and other 2 certificates of good completion 

14. Proposal Assessment

Proposals may be assessed using the following broad weight subject to confirmation by Tearfund procurement procedures:

•  Technical quality (50%)
• Team of experts (20%) 
• Proposed budget/value for money (30%)

15. Application Deadline and Submission

Applications should be submitted by17:00 CAT on 30th September 2026to Tearfund Rwanda through the following emailrwanda-procurement@tearfund.orgwith mention of “Consultancy to perform Endline Evaluation of the Kungahara Project” in the subject line.

16. Annex: Minimum Endline Indicator Comparison Table