Consultancy Title:

Independent Consultant End-of-Project Evaluation of

EducateHER-2 Project (EducateHER-2 / OC2.3)

Project Coverage

All 15 counties in Liberia (national scope), with selected counties

for deep-dive fieldwork

Contract Period

Start: July 1, 2026 | End: August 30, 2026

Level of Effort

32 Working Days over approximately 8 weeks

Contracting Entity

Helping Our People Excel (HOPE), on behalf of the EducateHER

Consortium

Reporting Line

To: MEL Manager (HOPE) | Technical Oversight: EducateHER

Consortium and EOL focal point (as applicable)

Application deadline:

June 26, 2026

Introduction/Background

Education Out Loud (EOL)—the Global Partnership for Education’s advocacy and social

accountability fund—supports civil society engagement to strengthen participation, transparency,

and accountability in national education policy formulation and implementation. In Liberia, the

EducateHER Consortium (led by HOPE, with PAYOWI) implements EducateHER Phase 2

(EducateHER-2 / OC2.3) to advance implementation and monitoring of the National Policy on

Girls’ Education (NPGE 2021–2026) and its strategy through coalition action, evidence-based

advocacy, and social accountability mechanisms.

Project Description

Overall Objective: Improved implementation and monitoring of the National Policy on Girls’

Education (NPGE 2021–2026) and the three-year strategic plan.

Specific Objectives:EOL (OC2) End-of-project review ToR for consultancy.

• Increased commitment of policymakers and key stakeholders to create an enabling

environment for implementing the National Policy on Girls’ Education.

• Improved monitoring and accountability of county and national stakeholders for NPGE

implementation.

Core pathways to change include coalition building, policy engagement, monitoring and

accountability, mobilization, civic engagement, and evidence generation and use (e.g.,

dashboard/scorecards/policy products).

Evaluation Purpose

This end-of-project evaluation will assess performance, results, and EducateHER-2’s contribution

to changes in policy commitment, evidence use, and accountability for the implementation of girls’

education policy. The evaluation will generate actionable recommendations to inform future

programming and stakeholder decision-making. The evaluation will ensure accountability and

fostering learning benefiting grantees’ own learning and achievements. The evaluations also serve

to document key achievements to strengthen visibility and support future resource mobilization

efforts for the grantees.

Evaluation Specific Objectives,

This evaluation seeks to;

1. Assess the extent to which EducateHER-2 achieved planned outputs and outcomes against

the approved results framework and indicators.

2. Assess relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability using the

OECD-DAC evaluation criteria (2019 definitions), including attention to equity and

inclusion.

3. Assess the performance of advocacy and social accountability pathways (coalition

functioning, evidence generation/use, policy engagement, citizen participation, and

accountability actions).

4. Identify lessons learned, good practices, and unintended outcomes (positive and negative),

including gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) effects.

5. Provide prioritized, feasible recommendations for strengthening future phases,

visibility/profile building and fundraising efforts, adaptive management, and sustainability

of results.

Outcomes, Outputs, and Indicators:

The table below gives a summary of the objectives, outcomes, outputs, and indicators of the

project:

Evaluation Scope

Timeframe: EducateHER-2 implementation period is March 1, 2024, to December 31, 2026.

Geographic: National (15 counties) with purposively selected counties for in-depth field inquiry.

The final county selection will be proposed and justified in the inception report.

Thematic (minimum):

• Policy influence and stakeholder commitments for NPGE implementation (national and

sub-national)

• Evidence products and uptake (simplified NPGE, dashboard, scorecards, briefs, media

products)

• Coalition strength, coordination, and collective action
• Citizen engagement and social accountability mechanisms (women’s groups, PTAs,

community monitors, feedback/complaints where applicable)

• Monitoring, learning, and accountability routines at county and national levels
• GESI and human rights-based approach (participation, inclusion, and safeguarding)EOL (OC2) End-of-project review ToR for consultancy.

Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions

The evaluation will be guided by OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness,

efficiency, impact, sustainability) and UNEG Norms and Standards (independence, credibility,

ethics, transparency, utility).

Relevance:

• To what extent was EducateHER-2 aligned with national girls’ education priorities

(NPGE/strategy) and stakeholder needs?

• Were targeted stakeholders and influence pathways appropriate, given the political

economy and implementation context?

Coherence:

• How coherent was EducateHER-2 with government systems and education sector

coordination mechanisms?

• How coherent is the project’s overall design and interventions response to the policy gaps

identified that the project sought to address.

• What synergies were achieved with other actors’ initiatives,
• Where did duplication occur or gaps remain?
• What key relationships were built and how did these facilitate project interventions and

addressing of key policy gaps?

Effectiveness:

• To what extent were outputs delivered and outcomes achieved against targets and

indicators?

• What evidence shows improved evidence use and strengthened commitments among

policymakers and stakeholders?

• To what extent did the project achieve its set objectives?
• To what extent did the project address the identified national policy gaps?

Efficiency:

• Were resources used in a timely and cost-conscious way relative to outputs and results?
• Were partnership and coordination arrangements fit for purpose and efficient?
• How efficient were the approaches and strategies employed by the project?
• Were the project design and interventions efficient in addressing identified policy gaps?
• Were the projects budgeting and reporting processes and systems adequate to support

efficient project delivery?

Impact (Contribution):● What changes occurred in policy processes, practices, commitments, and accountability

related to NPGE implementation?

• What is EducateHER-2’s contribution to these changes in a multi-actor system?
• What unintended outcomes emerged (positive/negative)?

Sustainability:

• Which results are likely to continue after project close (coalition capacity, tools, routines,

relationships)?

• What factors enable or threaten sustainability (political, institutional, financial, technical)?
• What intervention results outcomes have carried forward/ been realised in the current

project phase from the previous project phase implementation.

• How have the previous project phase results contributed to/built on the current phase

results?

• What mechanisms have been established under the project to support and facilitate project

and results sustainability beyond the current phase?

• What results/aspects of the project show potential and promise for uptake by government

and other sector stakeholders?

Primary Intended Users:

• EducateHER Consortium (HOPE, PAYOWI) leadership and program/MEL teams
• EducateHER Coalition members and county-level actors
• Government counterparts (MoE, County Education Offices, relevant line ministries, and

coordination platforms)

• Education Out Loud (EOL) stakeholders/grant agent partners
• Development partners and education sector stakeholders in Liberia

Methodology and Approach

The evaluation will use a mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) design with strong

triangulation across data primary and secondary sources. Given the advocacy and social

accountability focus, the evaluation will apply a theory-based approach and include contribution

focused methods (e.g., Outcome Harvesting and/or Contribution Analysis) to assess influence and

plausible contribution where attribution is not feasible.

Desk Review (minimum):

• Final approved project proposal and Theory of Change
• Results framework/indicator tracking table (IPTT)/Indicator Monitoring Report (IMR),

baselines, and targets

• Progress reports, learning briefs, bi-annual assessments, and meeting minutes
• Advocacy products (policy briefs, scorecards, simplified NPGE, media content)
• Dashboard analytics and usage metrics (where available)

EOL (OC2) End-of-project review ToR for consultancy.● Relevant sector policy documents and coordination records

• Financial reports and budgets of the project
• NPGE Policy, Strategic Plan and Operational Plan
• Stakeholder engagement meeting minutes i.e. LEG, Technical Working Groups, etc.
• Annual School Censes data sets and reports, institutional researches and other studies, etc

Primary Data Collection (minimum):

• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with government, legislators/committees, coalition

leaders, development partners, and implementing team members

• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with women’s groups, PTAs, community monitors,

youth/adolescent representatives (with safeguarding protocols)

• Case studies (2–4) of credible influence or accountability change stories (e.g., funding

commitment, monitoring routine institutionalized, practice change)

• Stakeholder Perception Survey (short) to quantify perceptions of evidence use,

commitment change, coalition effectiveness, and accountability improvements

Stakeholder Perception Survey (Short Module)

A short stakeholder perception survey will be implemented to complement qualitative findings

and provide a quantitative snapshot of perceived change among key stakeholder groups. The

survey will be designed to be low-burden, with clear questions mapped to key outcomes and

indicators.

Target respondents (minimum groups):

• National-level duty bearers and policy actors (e.g., MoE, relevant units, sector coordination

participants, sector actors, education CSOs, etc)

• County education leadership and technical staff
• EducateHER Coalition members and partner CSOs
• Women’s groups/PTAs/community accountability actors
• Development partners and media partners (where relevant)

Indicative sample and sampling approach (to be finalized in inception):

• Sample size target: XX respondents (recommended range: 80–150), with minimum quotas

per stakeholder group and county.

• Sampling: purposive/stratified to ensure representation across stakeholder categories and

selected counties; include gender balance and marginalized group representation where

feasible.

OVERALL Learning Questions

1. What has been the total civil society reach of the OC2 alliance during the project?

• How many civil society organisations/groups have the OC2 project reached

during the project? This could be CSO members of the lead organisation or of an

EOL (OC2) End-of-project review ToR for consultancy.alliance member, formal CSOs/CBOs, CSO networks, like youth networks

involved in the project. Please specify type of civil society organisation in the

count.

• To which extent were these civil society organisations represented primarily as

beneficiaries, or as actors in social accountability processes?

2. How has the alliance of organisations implementing the OC2 project contributed to the

outcomes of the project?

• Did the alliance members already have an established working relationship or

were the alliance formed to apply for the OC2 grant?

• Has the composition of the alliance had any significance in achieving the project

results?

• Has the composition of the alliance made a difference in reaching the

marginalised groups that the project set out to reach?

• Is there anything you would do differently in terms of the alliance composition,

lead organisation or other, if you were to seek similar funding opportunities in the

future?

3. Have the learning efforts of Education Out Loud made any difference to the OC2 alliance

organisations (lead organisation/alliance member organisations)?

• Are there any changed practices, approach, behaviours or systems in the

organisation(s) that can be attributed to participation in EOL learning initiatives

(learning collaboratives, training, action research, learning events) – whether

carried out by EOL staff, GCE or learning partners?

• If so, which learning initiative was most effective for the organisation(s) and

why?

Has the organisation(s) been able to institutionalise learning and reflective practice? If so,

at what level? and how?

Data collection and Administration:

• Mode: digital (phone/tablet) or paper, where connectivity is limited; data entry and quality

checks built in.

Data Quality, Ethics, and Safeguarding

The evaluator must comply with UNEG Norms and Standards and apply strong ethical safeguards,

including informed consent, confidentiality, do no harm, independence, and transparent reporting.

Special protections must be applied when engaging adolescents and vulnerable groups, including

assent/consent procedures and referral guidance where disclosures occur.

Indicative Workplan and Timeline (Placeholder)

Management and Coordination Arrangements

• The consultant/firm will be contracted by HOPE on behalf of the EducateHER Consortium.
• HOPE will facilitate access to documentation, stakeholder contacts, and coordination

support for scheduling interviews and fieldwork.

• The consultant/firm is responsible for independent data collection, analysis, and reporting,

and will present findings to stakeholders for validation.

Quality Assurance

• Approval of the inception report and tools prior to fieldwork
• Triangulation plan and audit trail for contribution claims
• Stakeholder validation of preliminary findings
• Final report quality checks for methodological rigor, evidence alignment, and clarity of

recommendations.

Required Qualifications and Experience

• Minimum 7 years of evaluation experience, including end-of-project/summative

evaluations.

• Demonstrated experience in education advocacy, policy influence, and/or social

accountability evaluations.

• Strong command of OECD-DAC criteria and ethical evaluation standards (UNEG).
• Experience using theory-based and contribution-focused approaches (Outcome Harvesting

and/or Contribution Analysis preferred).

• Strong qualitative and quantitative skills, including survey design and analysis.
• Demonstrated experience integrating gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) and

safeguarding in evaluation design and fieldwork.

• Excellent English report-writing and facilitation skills; knowledge of the Liberian context

is an asset.

Application Submission Requirements (Consultants/Firms)

• Technical proposal (methodology, sampling, analytical approach, workplan, and timeline)
• Financial proposal (budget with assumptions)
• CV(s) of key personnel and team roles
• Two samples of relevant evaluation work
• At least two professional referencesEOL (OC2) End-of-project review ToR for consultancy.
• Statement on ethics, safeguarding, and data protection

Submission deadline: June 26, 2026

Submission email: info@hopelib.org

Email subject line: “EducateHER-2 End-of-Project Evaluation – Proposal”

Proposal Evaluation Criteria