Job Details

Your next big opportunity awaits

End of Project Evaluation CIVSAM Program Phase One 2023 2025

People's Process on Housing and Poverty in Zambia | Lusaka

People's Process on Housing and Poverty in Zambia

Innovating the future of tech solutions in Zambia.

Job Description

1. Executive Summary

We Effect Zambia invites qualified evaluation consultants to conduct a comprehensive End-of-Project Evaluation of the CIVSAM Program (2023-2025) in Zambia, implemented through the Partnerships for Food, Climate Resilience and Gender Equality (P4Food Zambia) project. This critical evaluation will assess achievements across six interconnected result areas, providing evidence-based insights for accountability, learning, and future programming decisions.

2. Program Background and Context

2.1 About We Effect

We Effect is a Swedish development organisation established in 1958 by Sweden’s cooperative movement, operating in over 20 countries across Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Africa. We Effect’s vision is “a sustainable and just world free of poverty.”

Our mission focuses on empowering the most vulnerable populations—women and youth, who constitute 70% of those living in poverty—through partnership with local organisations and communities. We Effect applies a human rights-based approach across all programs, utilizing gender-transformative methodologies that operate at multiple levels: personal, social, material, organisational, and structural.

Core Strategy: Strengthen cooperatives and membership-based organisations through:

2.2 CIVSAM Program Overview

The CIVSAM Program operates under the global framework “Food, Rights, Power” and is funded by Sida (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency). In Zambia, it is implemented under the flagship of Stronger Together: Supporting Civil Society to advance the right to food for all individuals, households and communities in Zambia is a three-year programme working to advance the right to food that is linked to the global strategy and it is implemented through strategic partnerships with:

Program Goal: “Empowered, mobilised and organised women, men and young people who are able to affirm their equal, sustainable and equitable right to food.”

Specific Objectives:

  1. Increased number of female, male, and young rights-holders directly benefiting from program interventions
  2. Increased capacity, voice, and meaningful participation of partner organisations in platforms, spaces, and networks working on the right to food

2.3 Program Result Areas and Key Interventions

Result Area 1: Effective, Equitable & Just Food Systems

Result Area 2: Sustainable Livelihoods

Result Area 3: Climate change and resilience

Result Area 4: Equitable and just access to adequate housing

Result Area 5: Gender Equality and Women’s Rights

Result Area 6: Stronger Organisations

3. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives

3.1 Primary Purpose

To conduct a comprehensive, independent assessment of the CIVSAM Program performance, achievements, and impact across all result areas, providing evidence-based insights for accountability to Sida and stakeholders, organizational learning, and next Phase programming decisions.

3.2 Specific Objectives

  1. Performance Assessment: Evaluate program achievements against planned outcomes, outputs, and results framework indicators
  2. Quality Analysis: Examine relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of interventions led by PPHPZ, ZCCN, and FIAN
  3. Impact Documentation: Assess contributions to gender equality, climate resilience, sustainable livelihoods, and civil society strengthening
  4. Accountability: Provide transparent reporting to Sida, We Effect, and national partners
  5. Learning and Improvement: Generate actionable recommendations and lessons learned for Phase Two programming

4. Key Evaluation Questions

4.1 Relevance

  1. To what extent did program interventions address the identified needs and priorities of rights-holders and civil society partners in Zambia?
  2. How well did the program respond to changing contexts and emerging challenges during implementation?
  3. How relevant were program objectives to beneficiary needs and national development priorities?

4.2 Effectiveness

  1. To what extent were program outcomes and outputs achieved across the six result areas?
  2. How effectively did PPHPZ, ZCCN, and FIAN contribute to civil society strengthening and advancement of the right to food?
  3. What specific, measurable changes occurred in the lives of women, men, and youth as direct results of program interventions?
  4. What factors facilitated or hindered achievement of intended results?

4.3 Efficiency

  1. Were human, financial, and technical resources utilised efficiently to deliver intended outputs and outcomes?
  2. How effective was collaboration, coordination, and communication among implementing partners?
  3. What alternative approaches might have achieved similar or better results with available resources?

4.4 Impact

  1. What significant positive and negative changes occurred in the lives of rights-holders (women, men, youth) as direct or indirect results of program interventions?
  2. What evidence exists of policy, institutional, or normative changes in gender equality, food rights, or climate resilience?
  3. What broader, longer-term effects can be attributed to the program on target communities and systems?
  4. What unintended consequences (positive or negative) have emerged?

4.5 Sustainability

  1. Which program results and achievements are most likely to be sustained beyond Phase One support?
  2. How well are PPHPZ, ZCCN, and FIAN positioned to continue their work independently or with reduced external support?
  3. What institutional, financial, and technical factors will influence long-term sustainability?

4.6 Cross-cutting Themes

  1. How effectively did the program integrate and mainstream gender equality, conflict sensitivity, and environmental sustainability throughout all interventions?
  2. To what extent have marginalized groups been meaningfully included and benefited?
  3. What key lessons can inform Phase Two design and implementation in Zambia?

5. Evaluation Scope and Parameters

5.1 Temporal and Geographic Scope

5.2 Target Stakeholder Categories

Primary Beneficiaries:

Implementing Partners:

Secondary Stakeholders:

6. Evaluation Methodology and Approach

6.1 Methodological Framework

The evaluation will employ a robust mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods, guided by:

6.2 Data Collection Methods

The evaluation will employ a mixed-methods approach combining comprehensive desk review of program documents and relevant literature, quantitative data collection through structured surveys with 500+ beneficiaries using stratified random sampling (95% confidence level, 5% margin of error), and qualitative methods including key informant interviews. Data will be disaggregated by gender, age, location, and intervention type, with quality assured through triangulation across multiple sources, participatory validation workshops with stakeholders, and systematic quality control procedures adhering to international evaluation standards and ethical guidelines.

7. Expected Deliverables and Timeline

7.1 Required Deliverables

1. Inception Report (15-20 pages plus annexes)

2. Draft Evaluation Report (45-50 pages excluding annexes)

3. Stakeholder Validation Workshop

4. Final Evaluation Report (Maximum 50 pages excluding annexes)

5. Supporting Materials

7.2 Implementation Timeline

Total Duration: 25 working days

8. Budget Framework and Payment Terms

8.1 Budget Requirements

Consultants must provide a detailed budget proposal in ZMW with clear distinction between:

Professional Fees:

Reimbursable Costs:

8.2 Payment Schedule

9. Consultant Qualifications and Requirements

9.1 Lead Evaluator Requirements

Education and Experience:

Language and Communication:

10. Application Process and Selection

10.1 Required Application Documents

Technical Proposal (Maximum 20 pages):

Financial Proposal:

10.2 Evaluation Criteria

Technical Quality (50%): Methodology, approach, understanding of context, team expertise Experience and Qualifications (30%): Relevant experience, track record, regional knowledge Cost-effectiveness (20%): Value for money, budget reasonableness, financial management

10.3 Selection Process

11. Evaluation Standards and Ethics

Ethical Requirements

12. Contract Terms and Management

12.1 Contract Framework

12.2 Evaluation Management

PPHPZ will serve as the evaluation lead and budget holder, working closely with We Effect Zambia country management and relevant program staff to ensure proper oversight and quality assurance throughout the evaluation process.

12.3 Quality Assurance

We Effect reserves the right to request revisions for substandard deliverables
Technical backstopping and guidance provided throughout the process
Independent quality review of evaluation processes and outputs
Regular progress monitoring and milestone reviews
13. Submission Instructions

13.1 Submission Requirements

Deadline:4th September, 2025

Email Address: [email protected]

cc: [email protected]

Subject Line: CIVSAM Program End-of-Project Evaluation Proposal

13.2 Important Notes

Don't miss out on this opportunity!