Consultancy for End-of-Project Evaluation

Maiduguri, Borno, NigeriaPosted Oct 28, 2026

Apply on Street Child France's site

Background Street Child is implementing the project titled “Advancing Capacity, Community systems, and Enabling Supportive Structures for Persons with Disabilities in the BAY State (ACCESS Project)” under CBPF project code CBPF-NGA-25-S-INGO-38249. The project has three outcomes: (1) enhanced capabilities and capacities of relevant stakeholders, including the State, civil society organisations and community-based actors, to promote, adopt and sustain disability-inclusive actions; (2) strengthened inclusive advocacy for the adoption, domestication and implementation of the Disability Bill, Rights Commission Law, Acts and other provisions; and (3) strengthened capacity of community-led actions on prevention and response to protection needs of children, women and men, including persons with disabilities, and linkages to available service providers. The project targets 12,000 people directly and an estimated 30,000 indirectly. The directly targeted population includes internally displaced people, returnees and host communities. The proposal records 2,393 persons with disabilities among the direct targets. The project also includes gender equality, GBV programming, disability inclusion, accountability to affected populations (AAP), protection mainstreaming and cash and voucher assistance.
Purpose of the Consultancy The purpose of the consultancy is to conduct an independent, evidence-based end-of-project evaluation of Street Child's ACCESS project and its implementing partners (CENSCOPE, HALI, and POWIB) to generate credible findings, conclusions, and practical recommendations on what was achieved, how it was achieved, what worked, what did not work, why, and what should be strengthened in future programming. The evaluation will cover the project as a whole and assess the performance and contribution of CENSCOPE, HALI, POWIB, and Street Child. The partner assessment aims to strengthen accountability, learning, coordination, quality, and future partnership arrangements.
Objectives of the Evaluation
Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the project design, targeting and implementation approach to the needs, priorities and barriers faced by persons with disabilities and other affected populations in the BAY States.
Assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended results and contributed to meaningful changes in disability inclusion, protection, advocacy, community capacity, access to services and accountability.
Assess the efficiency, value for money, sustainability and key lessons from implementation to inform future disability-inclusive protection programming.
Assess progress in strengthening the capacity of partner CSOs and their networks, identify remaining capacity gaps and opportunities for further investment, and provide evidence to support a separate donor-facing capacity assessment report, continuity planning and future donor engagement.
Scope of the Evaluation The evaluation will cover the full project period, all approved project outcomes, outputs and indicators, and the main implementation locations in Borno, Adamawa and Yobe States. It will include both overall project performance and partner-level assessment. The consultant should assess relevance, effectiveness, contribution to change, efficiency, value for money, inclusion, safeguarding, accountability, data quality, partnership, localisation, sustainability and learning. The partner and CSO capacity assessment should be fair, evidence-based and forward-looking. It should assess each partner against its agreed role, resources, operating context, workplan, budget, deliverables, monitoring evidence, network engagement and capacity-strengthening progress. The assessment should identify strengths, capacity gaps, areas for further investment and possible areas for follow-on support. It will also inform a separate donor-facing report on CSO capacity strengthening, partnership learning and continuity opportunities. 4.1 Partner assessment scorecard The consultant shall use an evidence-based partner and network assessment scorecard to assess each partner and one network fairly against its approved role, resources, operating context and deliverables. The scorecard should cover role clarity, delivery quality, timeliness, data quality, inclusion, coordination, value for money, learning and sustainability. Ratings must be explained with evidence and must not be used as a simplistic ranking of partners. 4.2 Geographical coverage The evaluation shall cover the project locations identified in the approved project proposal: Jere and Maiduguri/MMC in Borno State, Fune in Yobe State and Madagali in Adamawa State. The consultant shall propose a feasible and representative field sampling approach if full physical coverage of all locations is not possible.
Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions The evaluation shall be adapted to the humanitarian and disability-inclusion context, together with cross-cutting questions on protection, gender, disability inclusion, AAP, localisation and learning. Ø Evaluation objective : Relevance and appropriateness Primary evaluation question: To what extent were the project design, targeting and implementation approach relevant and appropriate to the needs, priorities and barriers faced by persons with disabilities and other affected populations? Ø Evaluation objective: Results and contribution to change Primary evaluation question : To what extent did the project achieve its intended results and contribute to meaningful changes in disability inclusion, protection, advocacy, community capacity, access to services and accountability? Ø Evaluation objective : Efficiency, sustainability and learning Primary evaluation question: How efficient was implementation, how sustainable are the results, what value for money was achieved, and what lessons should inform future disability-inclusive protection programming? Ø Evaluation objective : CSO capacity and partnership continuity Primary evaluation question: To what extent did the project strengthen the capacity of partner CSOs and their networks, what capacity gaps remain, and what opportunities exist for further investment, continuity and future donor engagement?
Required Evaluation Methodology The consultant will propose a mixed-methods approach that is proportionate, accessible, ethical and strong enough to produce credible findings. The methodology should include desk review, quantitative analysis of available monitoring data, qualitative interviews, focus group discussions, site visits where safe and feasible, partner document review, CSO capacity assessment, network mapping where useful, data quality audit, value-for-money review and validation of preliminary findings. The consultant must prepare a detailed evaluation matrix during the inception phase. The matrix should link each evaluation question to judgement criteria, indicators, evidence sources, data collection methods, respondent groups and analysis approach. The evaluator should use contribution analysis to assess plausible links between the project and observed changes, while avoiding unsupported claims of impact. The CSO capacity assessment should examine progress in organisational, technical, coordination, advocacy, inclusion, safeguarding, accountability, data management, partnership and network-strengthening capacities. It should identify practical capacity gaps, areas where partners can build on existing strengths, and opportunities for Street Child and partners to position for continuity and future funding. 6.1 Sampling The consultant shall provide a clear sampling strategy. The inception report must include a clear sampling strategy with proposed minimum numbers of key informant interviews, focus group discussions and site visits. The strategy should explain how respondents will be selected, how findings will be compared across locations and stakeholder groups, and how the evaluation will avoid over-reliance on easily accessible respondents. The sample should ensure meaningful representation of the four project locations and, at a minimum, inclusive engagement with the following:

Persons with disabilities, including women, men, girls, and boys.
Caregivers of persons with disabilities.
Community leaders and representatives.
Protection committees.
Government stakeholders.
State Ministries of Women Affairs.
State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) representatives.
Disability Commissions staff members.
Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs).
Disability Working Group members.
Street Child staff.
Partner staff, including CENSCOPE, HALI, and POWIB.
Local authorities.
Humanitarian coordination actors.
Direct project beneficiaries.
Community members who did not directly benefit from the project. The methodology shall explain how hard-to-reach or high-risk respondents will be included safely and ethically. 6.2 Data quality The consultant shall assess the reliability of the project evidence before drawing conclusions. Attendance sheets, activity records, beneficiary figures, indicator trackers, assessment results and other means of verification should be checked for completeness, consistency, duplication, disaggregation and traceability where relevant. 6.3 Stakeholder Categories to Consult The consultant shall ensure meaningful and inclusive engagement with, at minimum:

Cross-Cutting and Ethical Requirements

The evaluation must be disability-inclusive and accessible. Data collection tools and consultation arrangements must accommodate different communication and accessibility needs.
Participation must be voluntary, informed and safe. Respondents must be informed of the evaluation's purpose and how their information will be used.
No respondent should be pressured into disclosing personal or other sensitive information. The evaluator must use appropriate referral arrangements where a disclosure creates an immediate protection concern.
The evaluation must protect confidentiality and personal data. Individual names, phone numbers and other identifying information must not appear in the public evaluation report unless specifically authorised and ethically justified.
The evaluator must observe safeguarding, PSEA, child safeguarding and do-no-harm requirements applicable to the assignment.
Data collection with children, where required, must follow approved safeguarding and consent/assent procedures and only be conducted where ethically justified.
The evaluator must remain independent and disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
Findings must be evidence-based. The consultant must distinguish verified findings, stakeholder perceptions, limitations and evaluator judgement.

Expected Deliverables
Inception report Minimum content: Methodology, evaluation matrix, sampling plan, tools, ethics approach, accessibility plan, workplan and document request list.
Preliminary findings debrief Minimum content: Initial findings, evidence gaps, emerging conclusions and issues requiring clarification.
Draft evaluation report Minimum content: Full findings, conclusions, limitations, CSO capacity and partner assessment, recommendations and a short “so what?” section. Separate donor-facing CSO capacity assessment report, highlighting capacity-strengthening progress, remaining gaps, opportunities for further investment and positioning for continuity.
Final report and presentation Minimum content: i. Revised final report, annexes, clean data or evidence file where applicable, ii. management presentation, iii. donor-facing CSO capacity assessment report and iv. management response template.
Minimum Structure of the Final Evaluation Report

Executive summary
Project background and evaluation purpose
Evaluation scope, methodology and limitations
Findings by the four evaluation objectives
Results against outcomes, outputs, indicators and targets
Contribution to disability inclusion, protection, advocacy, community capacity, access to services and accountability
CSO capacity and partner assessment, including capacity-strengthening progress, network contribution, remaining gaps and opportunities for further support
MEAL and data quality assessment
Efficiency and value-for-money observations
Lessons learned and good practices
Management response template
Prioritised recommendations, with responsible actors and suggested timeframe
Annexes: evaluation matrix, tools, sampling, respondent profile, indicator achievement table and other relevant evidence

Consultant Qualifications and Experience The consultant or consultancy team must demonstrate:

At least 7 years of experience in programme evaluation, preferably in humanitarian, protection, disability inclusion or community-based programming.
Strong experience using mixed methods, contribution analysis, data quality review, triangulation and evidence-based reporting.
Experience evaluating disability-inclusive, protection, gender, safeguarding, localisation or accountability programming.
Experience in Nigeria or comparable humanitarian contexts, preferably including the BAY States.
Ability to conduct accessible, safe and culturally appropriate consultations with diverse stakeholders.
Strong analytical, writing and presentation skills in English.
No conflict of interest with Street Child, implementing partners or key project stakeholders.

Desired Team Composition A small consultancy team may be proposed where this improves quality and inclusion. If a team is proposed, the application must identify the Team Lead and each member’s role, level of effort and relevant experience. The team should include appropriate expertise in evaluation/MEAL and disability inclusion, and should have sufficient local capacity for field data collection and accessible engagement.
Duration and Level of Effort The assignment is expected to be completed within approximately 20 working days from contract signing, subject to access, security and availability of project records. The consultant shall provide a detailed workplan showing desk review, inception, tool development, fieldwork, analysis, reporting and validation. The schedule may be adjusted by agreement where necessary, but any change should not compromise the evaluation's quality or independence.
Management and Coordination The consultant will report to the designated Street Child focal person for the evaluation and will work closely with the programme/MEAL team for access to documents, stakeholder introductions, logistics and validation. The consultant will retain responsibility for the technical quality and independence of the evaluation. The consultant shall, as appropriate, liaise with JONAPWD, CENSCOPE, HALI, POWIB, DWG, government stakeholders (Ministry of Women Affairs, SEMA, and Ministry of Youth), relevant coordination structures, community representatives and affected populations.
Application Requirements Interested consultants/consultancy firms should submit the following:

Technical proposal (maximum 10 pages excluding annexes) describing understanding of the assignment, proposed methodology, sampling, tools, analysis plan and workplan.
Financial proposal, clearly itemised by professional fees, fieldwork/data collection, transport, accommodation, communications and other applicable costs.
Curriculum Vitae(s) of proposed consultant(s), highlighting relevant evaluation assignments.
At least two examples or references for comparable evaluation assignments.
At least two professional references with contact details.
Company profile and legal registration documents, where applying as a consultancy firm.
Declaration of conflict of interest.
Availability for the proposed assignment period.

Confidentiality, Data Ownership and Intellectual Property

All project information, datasets, documents and records accessed during the assignment shall be treated as confidential.
The consultant shall not share project information or evaluation findings externally before formal approval by Street Child.
All final evaluation products, datasets produced specifically for the assignment, tools and related materials shall become the property of Street Child, subject to applicable law and agreed contractual terms.
The consultant may retain professional copies of non-confidential materials only with prior written approval.
Any personal data collected must be handled securely and only for the purposes of the evaluation.

Evaluation Independence and Conflict of Interest The evaluator must be independent from the design and implementation of the project to the extent necessary to provide an impartial assessment. Any previous or current relationship with Street Child, JONAPWD, CENSCOPE, HALI, POWIB or another relevant project stakeholder must be disclosed in the proposal. The evaluator must report both positive and negative findings and must not alter evidence-based conclusions to satisfy the preferences of management, partners or stakeholders.
Expected Use of the Evaluation

Accountability to affected people, partners, donors and relevant stakeholders.
Assessment of achievement against the approved project results framework.
Improvement of future disability-inclusive protection programming.
Strengthening of partnership and localisation approaches.
Identification of sustainable community and institutional mechanisms.
Evidence-based management decisions, programme adaptation and future resource mobilisation.

Description copied from Street Child France's careers page. Read the full posting before you apply.

More jobs at Street Child France

See all openings at Street Child France

More jobs in Maiduguri

Furniture Designer/Draftsman
Jobberman· Maiduguri, Borno, Nigeria

See all jobs in Nigeria

Apply on Street Child France's site

Job description

More jobs at Street Child France

More jobs in Maiduguri