Evaluation Terms of Reference Training Course

Participants can determine whether a programme is ready for evaluation and state necessary preparatory actions.

• Evaluability assessment of intervention logic, evidence availability and decision timing
• Reviewing theories of change, logframes and assumptions before commissioning
• Assessing baseline quality, monitoring systems and existing evidence limitations
• Data availability matrix covering documents, datasets, respondents and access constraints
• Identifying contextual changes affecting relevance, implementation and plausible contribution
• Readiness actions for incomplete records, inaccessible populations and weak indicators
• Framing realistic evaluation scope around available time, budget and evidence

Participants can define a focused evaluation purpose, scope and question set for specified users.

• Decision-use analysis identifying primary users, decisions and information needs
• Purpose statements distinguishing accountability, learning, improvement and strategic decision-making
• Defining geographical, temporal, thematic and population scope boundaries
• Question matrix linking evaluation questions, criteria, indicators and evidence sources
• OECD DAC criteria selected according to assignment purpose and programme maturity
• Prioritising questions using utility, feasibility, ethical risk and evidence availability
• Separating evaluation questions from interview questions and data-collection instruments

Participants can specify proportionate methodological expectations without restricting evaluator judgement.

• Methodological clauses that specify standards without prescribing every data-collection decision
• Mixed-methods designs combining document review, interviews, surveys and observation
• Contribution analysis requirements for complex interventions without experimental counterfactuals
• Sampling expectations for stakeholder groups, locations and marginalised populations
• Triangulation plan across qualitative, quantitative and administrative evidence sources
• Disaggregation requirements for sex, age, disability and other relevant characteristics
• Stating limitations, uncertainty and claims-of-attribution boundaries within evaluation reporting

Participants can include ethical and safeguarding safeguards appropriate to evaluation risks and participant groups.

• Informed consent procedures for adult participants, children and vulnerable groups
• Do-no-harm assessment addressing security, stigma, retaliation and participation burdens
• Safeguarding clauses covering prevention, reporting routes and referral responsibilities
• Data-protection requirements for collection, storage, transfer, retention and disposal
• Confidentiality protocols for sensitive interviews, case records and findings
• Ethical approval requirements under organisational, national and institutional review procedures
• Risk register assigning mitigation actions, ownership and escalation thresholds

Participants can design governance and engagement arrangements that protect utility and evaluator independence.

• Stakeholder mapping by influence, interest, evidence contribution and potential use
• Reference group terms defining membership, review roles and decision authority
• Participation approaches for communities, implementing partners and government counterparts
• Managing power imbalances during consultations with affected populations
• Communication plan for inception, fieldwork updates, validation and dissemination
• Feedback mechanisms for factual correction without compromising evaluator independence
• Escalation routes for access barriers, ethical incidents and disputed findings

Participants can specify usable deliverables and apply quality controls throughout the evaluation lifecycle.

• Inception report requirements: refined questions, methodology, workplan and risks
• Deliverable schedule covering inception, fieldwork, draft report and final products
• Evaluation report structure aligned with evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations
• Quality assessment criteria for credibility, transparency, usefulness and methodological coherence
• Management response process assigning actions, owners, deadlines and tracking arrangements
• Validation workshops designed to test evidence, interpretation and recommendation feasibility
• Accessible dissemination products including briefs, presentations and anonymised data files

Participants can set realistic resource requirements and support fair, technically sound evaluator selection.

• Cost drivers: fieldwork locations, languages, security, accessibility and specialist expertise
• Budget parameters distinguishing fixed ceilings, estimates and reimbursable expenses
• Workplan milestones matched to decision dates, seasonal constraints and access windows
• Evaluator profile covering technical expertise, contextual knowledge and language capability
• Selection criteria weighting technical approach, team composition, quality and price
• Proposal scoring matrix with minimum thresholds and conflict-of-interest declarations
• Contract clauses addressing ownership, intellectual property, confidentiality and payment milestones

Participants can draft, test and revise an evaluation TOR against recognised quality requirements.

• Plain-language drafting that removes ambiguity from scope, responsibilities and deliverables
• TOR quality checklist covering logic, feasibility, ethics, governance and procurement
• Consistency checks across background, questions, methods, timeline and budget assumptions
• Reviewing sample TORs for overreach, omissions and contradictory requirements
• Reconciling donor, programme, partner and evaluator expectations before publication
• Version-control protocol for comments, decisions, approvals and final issue
• Approval workflow identifying accountable signatories and publication responsibilities

Participants can manage TOR implementation from evaluator appointment through management response planning.

• Kick-off meeting agenda confirming roles, access, expectations and communication channels
• Inception report review against TOR purpose, questions and methodological commitments
• Change-control process for justified revisions to scope, schedule and deliverables
• Fieldwork monitoring without directing evaluator analysis or conclusions
• Draft report review distinguishing factual correction from interpretation disputes
• Recommendation prioritisation using relevance, feasibility, ownership and implementation timing
• Application plan for an upcoming evaluation TOR and internal approval process