Terms of Reference for an Endline Evaluation

“My Body. My Decision. My Rights: Reducing Child Early Forced Marriage in Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso”

1.0       Project Summary

2.0       Project Background

Over the course of three years (26 February 2020 – 30 September 2023), the project “My Body. My Decision. My Rights: Reducing Child, Early and Forced Marriage in Sierra Leonne and Burkina Faso” aims to reduce CEFM, enable girls to make decisions on their own future, and fulfill their equal human rights by addressing the underlying normative conditions which maintain gender inequality, and making alternative opportunities more accessible and meaningful for girls.

As such, the project  targeted and addressed the driving factors of CEFM by empowering very young adolescent girls and boys (10-14 years) and older adolescent girls and boys (15-18 years) to make their own informed decisions about marriage and pregnancy; improving the social environment for adolescent girls to make these decisions, and finally strengthening the institutional environment at the national and sub-national levels to accelerate actions on gender equality and the prevention of CEFM. Aligned with the development priorities of Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and its Feminist International Assistance Policy (FIAP), the project promoted gender equality and girls’ empowerment by working across the socio-ecological model, including adolescent girls and boys, parents, traditional and religious leaders, women and girl-led community groups, civil society organizations (CSOs) including women’s rights organizations (WROs), service providers, sub-national, national, and regional government stakeholders.

The project includes a robust Gender Equality (GE) Strategy which is at the heart of the CEFM approach and interventions. In addition to laying out explicitly gender-transformative approaches to CEFM prevention and girls’ empowerment, the GE strategy included a focus on what was done at the organizational level to support the implementation of the project in terms of gender analysis, staffing, training, gender equality materials, tools, curriculum, etc.

1. Sierra Leone

This project was delivered through various local partnerships to promote local ownership and sustainability of outcomes.  Project implementation was aligned with the government of Sierra Leone’s national strategic plans and policies relevant to CEFM and adolescent pregnancy, including the National Reproductive Maternal Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health Policy and Strategy (2017-2021); Family Planning Costed Implementation Plan (2018-2022); the revised Sexual Offences Act; the Gender Equality Bill; and the National Free Quality Education Initiative, which includes a component of integrating sexual health education into the national school curriculum in order to expand access to ASRH services.

The tables below provide a detailed breakdown of the direct and indirect reach in Sierra Leone.

1. Burkina Faso

Similarly in Burkina Fast, the project was delivered through various local partnerships to promote local ownership and sustainability of results. Project implementation was aligned with the national strategic plans and policies of the Government of Burkina Faso relating to CEFM and adolescent pregnancy, specifically: i) the National Gender Strategy which takes into account sexual and reproductive health (SRH), in particular the strengthening of women’s and girls’ knowledge of SRH (EA 2.2.1), access to contraception (EA 2.2.2), reducing early and unwanted pregnancies among school girls (EA 2.2.4) and strategies against CEFM; ii) the Personal and Family Code (CPF) which gives women the legal capacity, the same rights and the same obligations as men in the areas of family and public life (Articles 292 to 296 relating to marriage); iii) the law on sexual and reproductive health (SSR), adopted on December 22, 2005; and iv) the national strategy for the promotion and protection of young girls 2017-2026, among other programs and initiatives.

The table below provides a detailed breakdown of the direct and indirect reach in Burkina Faso.

3.0        Overall Scope of the Endline Evaluation

The endline evaluation will be based on the project indicators and project thematic areas (Child Protection, Gender Equality, Health) and conducted across the project intervention locations in Western Rural and Kailahun in Sierra Leone and in Cascades and Hauts-Bassins in Burkina Faso.

The objective of the endline evaluation is to assess the overall impact of the project intervention on the targeted beneficiaries, specifically tracking the realization of the ultimate, intermediate and immediate outcomes, and the delivery of project outputs as a measure of program efficiency and effectiveness. The endline evaluation will generate well-documented findings, lessons learned and recommendations which will be shared with the donor and key stakeholders, and used by Save the Children and partners to guide and inspire future projects.

The specific objectives of the endline evaluation are to:

• Assess to which extent the project has achieved its objectives and the expected changes realized in adolescent lives
• Assess whether the project objectives and strategies were relevant in addressing the identified problem(s)
• Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the different approaches used to implement the project, as well as program delivery relevance and sustainability
• Establish the extent to which the results of the project are sustainable
• Generate learning (positive and negative) and good practices in implementing the project that could be applied in future programming

The endline evaluation will present strong quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the findings.  Appropriate methodologies will be used to collect data on social norms and attitudes, policies and laws, traditional practices, access to services, girls’ options, choices, transactional sex, sexual violence and other issues on early marriage from direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project.

3.1 Specific Scope of the Terms of Reference

Save the Children seeks to hire a consultant to prepare the endline evaluation for the “My Body. My Decision. My Rights: Reducing Child, Early and Forced Marriage in Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso” project. The consultant will only be responsible for data analysis and writing the endline evaluation, infield data collection will be the responsibility of a separate consultant, managed by Save the Children.

3.2 Performance Measurement Review Indicators

Data will be collected for the following project indicators:

Ultimate Outcome Indicators:

• % of families with one or more married daughters below the age of 18
• % of adolescent girls who report they are empowered according to the Girls Power Index

Intermediate Outcome Indicators:

• % of unmarried VYA and OA girls who report decision-making power with regards to marriage
• % of unmarried sexually active VYA and OA girls who report decision-making power on the use of contraception
• % of married adolescent girls (13-18 years) with child who report gender-equitable decision-making in the household
• % of caregivers (m/f) who support adolescent girls’ access to contraceptives
• % of caregivers (m/f) who have taken at least one action against child marriage in the past 6 months
• # of religious and traditional leaders (m/f) who have made public declarations against CEFM

• % of health and protection services that meet minimum requirements for gender-responsiveness and adolescent-friendliness (disaggregated by service type)

• % of adolescents (g/b) and caregivers (m/f) who agree that the law against CEFM is enforced in their community
• # of local officials (m/f) who report government actions taken to accelerate the prevention of CEFM

Immediate Outcome Indicators:

• % of VYA and OA girls and boys who believe that the ideal age of marriage for girls is 18+ years
• % of VYA and OA girls and boys who demonstrate knowledge of SRH, GE and life skills
• % of married adolescent girls (13-18 years) with child and their husbands who consider a husband to be justified in hitting or beating his wife
• % of married adolescent girls (13-18 years) with child and their husbands who demonstrate knowledge of gender equitable relationships and positive parenting
• % of married adolescent girls (13-18 years) with child and their husbands (participating in VSLAs) who demonstrate knowledge of financial literacy

• % of caregivers (m/f) who believe that the ideal age of marriage for girls is 18+ years
• % of caregivers (m/f) who hold positive attitudes towards girls’ rights to SRH, including marriage and pregnancy
• % of caregivers (m/f) who can name at least two harmful effects of CEFM on girls
• # of religious and traditional leaders (m/f) who believe that the ideal age of marriage for girls is 18+ years

• # of religious and traditional leaders (m/f) who hold positive attitudes towards girls rights to SRH, including marriage and pregnancy

• # of religious and traditional leaders (m/f) who can name at least two harmful effects of CEFM on girls

•  # of adolescents (g/b) who have visited a health facility to access SRH services in the past month

• % of adolescents (g/b) and caregivers (m/f) who agree that the government listens to them on CEFM and adolescent pregnancy concerns

3.3       Evaluation Criteria

The following key questions will guide the endline evaluation’s assessment of the project against the DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance. The consultant will be asked to review and update the existing data collection tools (from the baseline) to incorporate the questions needed to answer the following DAC criteria questions:

• Effectiveness: The extent to which the project attained its outcomes.

1. To what extent were the outcomes achieved? To what extent did the project achieve project indicator targets?
2. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the outcomes?

• Efficiency: The extent to which the project used the least costly resources possible in order to achieve desired results, considering inputs in relation to outputs.

1. Challenges in project implementation including managerial, organizational and any other unforeseen factors?
2. To what extent did the project collaborate with national and sub-national partners and stakeholders (technical, advocacy, funding, etc.) to achieve results in an efficient manner?

• Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by the project, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended.

1. What has happened as a result of the project – either intended or unintended, positive or negative?

• Relevance: The extent to which the project was suited to the priorities of the target beneficiary group(s), stakeholders, and to the donor.

1. Was the project relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries, as identified at the project inception/design stage?

• Sustainability: The extent to which the benefits (outputs, outcomes) of the project are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn.

1. What is the likelihood of the continuation and sustainability of the project outcomes and benefits after completion of the project?

• What commitments (financial, human resources, etc.) have been made by stakeholders to maintain or improve results?
• How will improvements in stakeholder knowledge, attitudes, capacities, etc. contribute to maintaining results?
• To what extent is support available from the external environment to maintain or improve results?

4.0       EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The endline evaluation will be a summative evaluation, employing a non-experimental design towards pre-post analysis, and a mixed methods approach. To meet the stated evaluation objectives, assess project performance and respond to evaluation questions, quantitative analysis is expected to compare baseline (pretest) and endline (post-test) values with statistical rigour; and qualitative analysis should adequately complement and triangulate quantitative findings to assess the project’s contributions to observed outcomes.

4.1 Data Collection Methods

The endline evaluation will utilize the original baseline study data collection tools, which will be shared with the consultant:

• Unmarried adolescent survey conducted with unmarried adolescent girls and boys aged 10-14 years and 15-18 years.
• Married adolescent girl and husband/partner survey conducted with married adolescent girls aged 13-18 years with a child and their husbands/partners.
• Caregiver survey conducted with female and male caregivers with a daughter aged 10-18 years.
• Focus group discussions (FGDs) with unmarried adolescent girls and boys 10-14 years and 15-18 years, female and male caregivers, and married adolescent girls aged 13-18 years and their husbands/partners.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with religious and traditional leaders, local government officials, women and girl leaders.
• Institutional assessment of sampled health facilities, police stations, and legal aid boards.

4.2 Sampling Frame for Sierra Leone

The sampling frame will cover two regions: Western Rural and Kailahun, with data disaggregated by gender (male, female), age (10-14 years, 15-18 years). The endline evaluation sampling frame will replicate that used in the baseline study to allow for comparative analysis.

1. Surveys

*based on confidence interval of 95% and margin of error of 5%

1. Focus Group Discussions

1. Institutional Assessments

4.3 Sampling Frame for Burkina Faso

The sampling frame will cover two regions: Cascades and Hauts-Bassins, with data disaggregated by gender (male, female), age (10-14 years, 15-18 years).

1. Surveys

<t