1.            Background information

1.1 About Plan International

Plan International (PI) is an independent development and humanitarian organization that advances children’s rights and equality for girls in developing countries and around the world. For over 80 years PI has been building powerful partnerships for Children, Adolescents and Youths (CAY) and the organization is active in over 80 countries. PI has been operating in Finland since 1998, and the organisation has no political or religious affiliations.

We believe that gender equality is central to achieving long-term change. We have a vision of a world that values girls, promotes their rights and ends injustice. We engage people and partners to empower children, young people and communities to make vital changes that tackle the root causes of discrimination against girls, exclusion and vulnerability. We support the safe and successful progression of children from birth to adulthood, and work with children and communities to prepare for and respond to crises and to overcome adversity. We drive change in practice and policy at local, national and global levels through our reach, experience and knowledge of the realities children face.

1.2 About the MBMF2 programme

Plan International Finland implements the MBMF2 programme funded by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) from 2022-2025 in Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Laos, and Myanmar, as a continuation of the earlier programme MBMF1. It is implemented in country by Plan International Country Offices and 31 Implementing partners, including Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs), Community-Based Organisations (CBOs), youth-led and women-led organisations.

The programme has a holistic approach to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) as it works directly with CAY in all their diversity, aged 10-24yo, as its primary target groups together with engaging with all stakeholders from the communities they live in. Its Theory of change is further based on an SRHR multicomponent approach which aims at improving 1) the demand for and 2) the supply of age-, and gender-responsive SRH services for CAY, and 3) strengthening an enabling environment for CAY’s SRHR.  It follows and streamlines PI’s core values of gender equality and inclusion, applying the Gender Transformative Approach (GTA) and engaging with the most marginalised and vulnerable groups, in particular Persons with Disabilities (PwD) in all 6 countries and persons with diverse SOGIESC[1] in Mozambique, Myanmar, Laos and Zimbabwe.

MBMF2 is founded on PI GTA and as such it builds on six essential key elements including 1) Addressing gender norms throughout the life-course, 2) Strengthening girls’ and young women’s agency, 3) Advancing both the condition and position of girls, young women, and women, 4) Working with boys, young men, and men to transform masculinities, 5) Ensuring inclusion and intersectionality, 6) Fostering an enabling environment for gender equality and girls’ rights.

MBMF2’s intended impact is that CAY in all their diversity have control over their bodies and futures in a healthy, safe and supportive environment. To contribute to this impact, the MBMF2 programme and projects have four outcome areas:

Outcome 1: CAY have the support and the confidence to make informed, responsible, positive and healthy choices about their SRHR and future. To achieve this, a Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) strategy was implemented across all countries for both in-school and out-of-school CAY, with content and modalities adapted to the local context. Climate education content was also integrated. In some countries, a Youth Economic Empowerment (YEE) and life-skills component was added to support SRHR outcomes. Part of the Multicomponent approach, this supports the increase of the demand of SRH services among CAY.

Outcome 2: CAY have improved access to quality, inclusive, gender-responsive and adolescent- and youth-friendly SRH services. All country teams (except for Myanmar) collaborated with government health facilities to strengthen their capacities through various modalities, including training service providers in adolescent- and youth-friendly SRH services and disability inclusion. Additional support included technical assistance, refurbishments, establishing Adolescent and Youth Friendly Corners, Peer Navigators in Uganda, and creating or strengthening contingency planning for service continuity during shocks and stresses in Zimbabwe. In some countries, the projects also supported youth participation in SRH service planning, delivery, and monitoring. Direct SRH services were also provided through mobile clinics, outreach programs, and referrals. This outcome supports the increase of the supply of quality age-, and gender-responsive SRH services for CAY, as part of the Multicomponent approach.

Outcome 3: CAY live in safe and supportive communities that transform gender roles and challenge harmful social and gender norms and stigma around SRHR. Activities focused on facilitating dialogues and training sessions for caregivers, community members, and leaders, to challenge harmful social and gender norms around CAY’s SRHR. It was done using diverse methodologies across countries, including community and intergenerational dialogues, parenting skills sessions, engagement with cultural and religious community leaders, male engagement. In some countries, Village Saving and Loan Associations (VSLAs), Income Generating Activities (IGAs), and Community Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) committees were implemented to strengthen household resilience to climate-related shocks. This outcome supports the strengthening of the Enabling Environment component of the SRHR Multicomponent approach.  

Outcome 4: CAY participate and benefit from a vibrant civil society that advocates for increased public investment and improved SRHR policy and promotes equality for and agency of girls. The main activities under this outcome were trainings for CSOs’ members and implementation of advocacy initiatives including those engaging youths to participate, to support country specific advocacy objectives and goals.  This outcome also supports the strengthening of the Enabling Environment component of the SRHR Multicomponent approach.

The international programme was designed to reach a total of approx.1,2 million people across 6 countries, 320 000 directly (including around 210 000 CAY) and 870000 indirectly. More detailed information of the programme’s objectives and design may be found in the programme document.

Note that the MBMF2 programme also contains a component in Finland on Global Citizenship Education, Youth activism and Communications, which is outside the scope of this evaluation. 

1.3 About the MBMF2 Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) strategy

The MBMF2 MEAL strategy follows Results Based Management’s principles and PI MERL Policy and standards. The Programme and Country Results Frameworks (RF) are aligned and integrated, sharing most indicators across all levels (impact, outcome, and output), along with additional country-specific indicators. A joint M&E system, utilizing digital data collection tools in multiple languages via Commcare and Kobo Toolbox, has been implemented across all countries to gather data and track indicators during baseline assessments and throughout ongoing and annual monitoring. Data collection is conducted with sampling strategies varying from one country to another. All data is processed, aggregated, visualized, and made accessible in Power BI, ensuring consistency and clarity. The joint M&E tools include Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) surveys for CAY, community members, service providers, teachers, as well as Health Facility assessments, and CSO capacity assessments. Quantitative data analysis was triangulated with qualitative data collected annually through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with participants. PI Country Offices and partners report to PI Finland on a quarterly basis for financial reports, biannually for activity-based reports and annually for comprehensive financial and narrative reports, including RF indicators’ tracking and results-based analysis and reporting.

The MBMF2 Learning Strategy is implemented at both the country and programme levels. At the country level, it is primarily carried out through annual learning harvesting workshops involving PI staff and partners, where lessons learned are captured and documented in learning briefs. Actionable learning is identified and monitored over time. In some countries, it is supported by feedback mechanisms collecting participants’ inputs for programmatic continuous improvement and increased accountability. At the programme level, the learning strategy is embedded across various platforms that facilitate cross-country sharing and learning. It also includes the documentation of key country-specific or programme-wide strategies, such as case studies on best practices and comparisons and analyses of cross-country strategies.

An internal Mid-Term Review of the programme was conducted after two years, involving PI staff and partners from all countries. The review included an outcome harvesting process and focused on assessing the relevance of the MBMF2 Theory of Change, identifying key programmatic learnings for scaling up, and evaluating how PI works with partners. Recommendations were developed into a management response plan, with specific action points implemented and monitored in each country.

2. Evaluation focus

2.1 Scope of the Assignment

The consultant/team of consultants is expected to lead the design and implementation of the final evaluation of the MBMF2 programme, implemented in 6 countries. This assignment is home-based, without travel.

This process will entail the following main areas of action:

• Design of the evaluation approach, methodology and methods, based on the existing documentation and orientations of these ToR, through a gender-transformative, inclusive and conflict-sensitive lens, and coordination of a participatory and transparent evaluation process
• Punctual technical backstopping at inception phase to review the existing country endline assessments’ sampling strategies, qualitative data collection tools for participants and data quality insurance protocols, and propose adjustments if needed in order to support their quality and alignment with evaluation information needs, before endline assessments are conducted. Note that the endline assessments data collection and analysis are coordinated by PI MEAL staff and under their sole responsibility.   
• Collection of qualitative data through the facilitation of online individual and group interactions engaging meaningfully with PI Finland and Country Offices and partners staff, driving learning and reflection within teams and across countries, and contributing to applicable evaluation deliverables.
• Draft of a synthetic evaluation report, highlighting key findings and recommendations at country and programme levels, in an accessible manner adapted to the evaluation’s users.

2.2 Purpose and objectives of the evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is both summative and formative. Summatively, it aims to foster learning from experience and enhance Plan International's accountability to the donor and general public by assessing the programme using the OECD DAC criteria and sharing the findings in an accessible manner. Formatively, it seeks to inform strategic decision-making for the next programme period (2026-2029) designed during the first quarter of 2025, formulate actionable recommendations to be considered during its inception phase in 2026 and contribute to SRHR programming across PI globally.

The objectives of this evaluation are to:

1. Evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence of the MBMF2 programme, and its contribution to gender equality and inclusion
2. Identify key programmatic learning and formulate recommendations at country and programme level on how the continuation of the programme and SRHR programming in general can be improved

2.3 Criteria of evaluation

The evaluation follows the OECD-DAC Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, focusing on relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and coherence. As a standard for PI the evaluation will also focus on gender and inclusion.

1. Relevance: Is the programme doing the right thing? Assess the extent to which the interventions and their approaches were suited to the priorities and policies of the people and communities they were intended to benefit.  
2. Effectiveness: Is the programme achieving its objectives? Assess the extent to which, and the reasons behind, the achievement (or not) of the project objectives, and whether these are leading to unintended (positive or negative) consequences for anybody involved in the interventions.  
3. Efficiency: How well are resources used? Assess the extent to which resources such as time and money were leveraged effectively and optimally to achieve project results and to maximize the reach. 
4. Sustainability: Will the benefits last? Assess the possibility of continued long-term benefits to the target populations after the project has been completed.  
5. Coherence: How well does the programme fit? Assess the extent to which other interventions supported or undermined the programme, and vice versa 
6. Gender and inclusion: Assess the extent to which the project applied gender transformative and inclusive approaches.

2.4 Evaluation questions

The following questions are expected to be included in the proposal by the consultant(s) and further refined during the inception phase of the evaluation.

Relevance

1. To what extent have the programme objectives and design responded to CAY’s (in all their diversity) needs and priorities, and have they continued to do so if/when circumstances have changed?
2. To what extent have lessons learnt been used to improve and adjust programme and projects implementation, including the recommendations from the Mid-Term Review?
3. To what extent have the programme and projects been implemented through a holistic approach, engaging with different stakeholders at all levels in a coordinated and strategic way?

Effectiveness

4. To what extent and how has the programme SRHR multicomponent approach (through its Demand, Supply and Enabling environment components) been effective and achieved its intended outcome and output results, including any differential results across target groups and various modalities of implementation used in the 6 countries?
5. To what extent and how have the complementary strategies of Economic empowerment with CAY and Economic resilience with community members been effective and achieved their respective objectives of contributing to CAY’s SRHR outcomes and to Community resilience?
6. To what extent and how effectively was the climate change resilience cross-cutting issue mainstreamed across components and countries, at individual, community and institutional levels, including with health facilities?
7. How was the layering of activities at individual, household, community levels conducted across countries and components, and how effective was it to achieve better outcomes in the different target groups?
8. Did the programme produce any unexpected outcomes, and if so, for whom?
9. How significant has the programme's contribution been to these changes, and what were the key factors that contributed to its success?
10. What obstacles, challenges and opportunities did the programme encounter, and how were they addressed or leveraged?

Efficiency

11. How strategically have resources (financial, human, technical, etc.) been allocated, and how efficient have the strategies, partnerships and implementation methods been, in delivering high-quality, timely, and cost-effective results?¨
12. Which programmatic strategies and modalities of implementation have yielded good/better results with same/less inputs, and should be considered for scaling-up, at country and programme level, and how?
13. How well do management structures at PI Finland, PI Country Offices and partners levels support efficient implementation, learning, risk management and safeguarding ?
14. How could the way Pl Country offices work together with partners be improved?
15. Do the programme teams have the necessary skills, expertise, and support to deliver results? Which staff capacity-building methods have been most adequate and efficient?

Sustainability

16. What evidence is there of continued benefits for target groups and of positive changes in institutions, frameworks and policies after the programme ends?
17. What evidence exists of local ownership and efforts to build partnerships and strengthen local capacities?
18.  Which strategies were most successful in contributing to sustainable changes?

Coherence

19. To what extent did the project leverage synergies with other interventions by Pl, partners and/or other stakeholders, including governments and international organizations? 

Gender and inclusion 

20. What achievements has the programme made in terms of gender transformative change addressing the root causes of inequality, including harmful social and gender norms, attitudes, and policies?
21. How have the key elements of our GTA, with a specific focus on boys and men engagement to transform masculinities, been successfully integrated and what have been the key practical and enabling factors?
22. To what extent have Disability Inclusion strategies across countries been successful in effectively including PwD in the planning and implementation of the programme strategies and activities, and supporting their SRHR?
23. What achievements has the programme made in terms of inclusion (beyond disability inclusion) and how have the needs and involvement of other minority groups been addressed, including persons with diverse SOGIESC in Myanmar, Laos, Zimbabwe and Mozambique?

2.5 Evaluation approach and methods

It is expected that the consultant(s) describe and justify an appropriate evaluation approach, methodology and methods for data collection and data analysis in the proposal. The consultant(s) should suggest an approach/methodology that provides credible answers (evidence) to the evaluation questions. A gender transformative, inclusive and conflict sensitive perspective must be adopted. The evaluation should be designed with a mixed-method approach using quantitative and qualitative data from secondary and primary data sources. 

To conduct the evaluation, the consultant(s) will have access to secondary data from the programme and projects’ documentation and MEAL products, including the programme document describing the Theory of Change and strategies, the countries’ baseline and endline assessments and social and gender norms diagnosis around CAY’s use of contraception, the programme Indicator Progress Tracking Table, the programme and projects' annual narrative reports, the Mid-Term Review report, the lessons learnt briefs, and the best practices case studies. The consultant(s) will also have access to the programme’s monitoring dashboard set in Power BI platform with baseline, annual and endline data. 

The endline assessments will be conducted in 2025 in each country around June/July, through surveys and Focus Group Discussions, under the responsibility and lead of PI MEAL staff. At inception phase, the consultant will provide punctual technical advice to strengthen the existing sampling strategies, qualitative tools (FGD guidance) and overall quality assurance protocols for the endline data collection. This task must be considered as part of the technical proposal of the consultant(s), and proper time must be allocated.

The consultant(s) will lead the collection of qualitative data by engaging with PI Finland, PI Country Offices, and implementing partners through online interactions, to be defined by the consultant(s) in the proposal.

Quality assurance considerations and protocols for data collection and analysis should be clearly described. Limitations to the chosen approach/methodology and methods shall be made explicit and the consequences of these limitations discussed in the proposal. The consultant(s) shall to the extent possible, present mitigation measures to address them. In cases where sensitive or confidential issues are to be addressed in the evaluation, consultant(s) should ensure an evaluation design that do not put informants and stakeholders at risk during the data collection phase or the dissemination phase.

The evaluation should be utilization-focused, meaning the evaluator must guide the entire process with a keen awareness of how each step and decision will impact the eventual use of the evaluation results. It is therefore expected that the evaluators, in their proposal, present i) how intended users are to participate in and contribute to the evaluation process and ii) methodology and methods for data collection that create space for reflection, discussion and learning between the intended users of the evaluation.

The evaluation design, methodology and methods for data collection and analysis are expected to be fully developed and presented in the inception report.

2.6 Users of the evaluation

The intended users of the evaluation are Plan International Finland, Plan International Country Offices, implementing partners, and the MFA.

3. Deliverables

Timeline (2025): 

• May 14: Draft Inception report (max. 15p)
• May 25: Revised MBMF2 endline’s qualitative data collection tools for participants, sampling strategies and quality assurance protocols (as part of the technical backstopping to be provided to the endline conducted by PI staff)
• June 16: Final Inception report (max. 15p)
• October 31: Draft Evaluation report (max. length to be defined)
• November 21: Final Evaluation report including Executive Summary (max. length to be defined)
• November, last week: PPT with main conclusions and recommendations (30 slides)
• November, last week: Webinar for online findings dissemination (1 to 2 hours)

The inception report will form the basis for the continued evaluation process and shall be approved by PI Finland before the evaluation proceeds to implementation. The inception report should cover evaluability issues and interpretations of evaluation questions. It should include the evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection and analysis, with a clear distinction between the approach/methodology and methods, and the description of how a gender-transformative, inclusive, conflict sensitive and utilization-focused approach will be ensured. It should present the evaluation design, with an evaluation matrix and a stakeholder mapping/analysis. All limitations to the approach/methodology and methods shall be made explicit and the consequences of these limitations discussed.

The inception report should also include a risks-assessment matrix and present ethical considerations. A specific workplan with updated timeline should also be presented, including number of hours/working days for each team member, for the remainder of the evaluation should be presented. The time plan shall allow space for reflection and learning between the intended users of the evaluation.

The final evaluation report should be professionally proofread, and the executive summary should be maximum 5 pages. The report shall clearly and in detail describe the evaluation approach/methodology and methods for data collection and analysis and make a clear distinction between the two. Limitations to the methodology and methods and the consequences of these limitations for findings and conclusions shall be described. The report shall describe how the utilization-focused approach has been implemented i.e. how intended users have participated in and contributed to the evaluation process and how methodology and methods for data collection have created space for reflection, discussion and learning between the intended users.

Evaluation findings shall flow logically from the data, showing a clear line of evidence to support the conclusions, which should be substantiated by findings and analysis. Evaluation questions shall be clearly stated and answered in the executive summary and in the conclusions. Recommendations and lessons learned should flow logically from conclusions and be specific, directed to relevant intended users and categorised as a short-term, medium-term and long-term. Furthermore, the gender-transformative approach and inclusion shall be described and reflected in the findings, conclusions and recommendations along with other identified and relevant cross-cutting issues.

The length of the overall report should be defined together between the consultant(s) and PI Finland. If the methods section is extensive, it could be placed in an annex to the report. Annexes shall always include the Terms of Reference, the Inception Report, the stakeholder mapping/analysis and the Evaluation Matrix. Lists of key informants/interviewees shall only include personal data if deemed relevant (i.e. when it is contributing to the credibility of the evaluation) based on a case-based assessment by the consultant(s). The inclusion of personal data in the report must always be based on a written consent.

4. Estimated timeline

As presented below, the assignment is spread over a 9-month timespan and separated in two: around April/June 2025: Inception phase, desk review and review of the MBMF2 endline tools, sampling strategies and quality assurance protocols, and from September to November 2025: complementary desk review, remote qualitative data collection with PI Finland and Country offices staff and partners, draft of the report and PPT and webinar to present findings.

Consultant(s) are invited to propose the estimated number of workdays required to complete the assignment, along with detailed timelines and milestones for processes and deliverables, as part of their proposal. Final timelines will be agreed upon between the consultant(s) and PI Finland during the validation of the inception report in the inception phase.

Timeline (2025)

• March 25 – April 13: Tendering
• April 14 – 25: Selection and contracting of consultant(s)
• April 28 – June 13: Inception phase
  • 1. Inception call between PI Finland and consultant(s)
  • 2. Desk review (first part), by consultant(s), of programme and projects’ documentation
  • 3. Review by consultant(s) of endline sampling strategies and qualitative data collection tools for participants to be used by Plan teams for the endline, in line with evaluation needs
  • 4. Draft of the inception report by consultant(s)
  • 5. Draft of qualitative data collection tools to be used by consultant(s) with PI Finland, Country teams and partners in September (with initial check-in with PI Finland)
  • 6. Feedback from PI Finland and adjustment of the inception report and qualitative data collection tools for PI staff and partners to be used by consultant(s)
• September 8 – 30: Desk review (second part) with the programme and projects’ endline reports and Social and Gender norms Diagnosis, validation of final qualitative data collection tools for PI staff and partners to be used by consultant(s)
• October 1– 17: Data collection conducted by consultant(s) to gather information and insights from PI Finland and Country Offices teams and partners
• October 20-31: Draft of the report by consultant(s), (with initial check-in with PI Finland on October 24)
• November 3 – 7: PI Finland feedback to the draft report
• November 10– 21: Draft of the final report by consultant(s), with second round of comments from PI Finland (with check-in with PI Finland on November 27)
• November last week: Webinar - presentation of the final deliverables by consultant(s) to PI Finland, PI Country offices and implementing partners

5. Budget   

The maximum available budget for the Final Evaluation is around 35 000 € (including VAT). All applicants should submit an all-inclusive budget as part of their application.

The payment will be made in separate instalments upon approval of deliverables by Plan International Finland, e.g. as per the below suggestion.

• Inception report describing the process, methods and tools used (25% of the total amount to be paid)
• Final deliverables, incl. the final report, the PP presentation of findings and recommendations and the Webinar (75% of the total amount to be paid)

6. Ethics and safeguarding

Plan International is committed to ensuring that the rights of those participating in data collection, analysis and planning processes are respected and protected, and the consultants must familiarize themselves and adhere to Plan International’s Global Policy: Safeguarding Children and Programme participants and Plan International’s Research Policy and Standards as part of the contract with Plan International.

All applicants should include details in their proposal on how they will ensure ethics and child protection in the process if/when the design includes engagement with the target groups. Specifically, the consultants shall explain how appropriate, safe, non-discriminatory participation of all stakeholders will be ensured and how special attention will be paid to the needs of children and other vulnerable groups. The consultants shall also explain how confidentiality and anonymity of participants will be guaranteed.

By tendering, participating to a tender, cooperating or taking part to a programme under contract with Plan International Finland the organisation declares its commitment to prohibition of collaboration with parties subject to sanctions imposed by the EU or the UN, to fund-freezing decisions made by Finnish authorities, or to any other applicable restrictions. Compliance to Article 5k of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 and other sanctions imposed by the UN and the EU is required as part the contracts.

7. Day-to-day management

Day-to-day management and the main point of contact for the consultancy will be:

• Solène Vadé, PI Finland MEAL specialist solene.vade@plan-international.org

8. Selection criteria for consultant(s)

We are looking for a team or an individual consultant with experience and skills required to design and implement this Final Evaluation:

• Documented experiences with evaluations of development cooperation and/or international aid.
• Proficiency in qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis, including proficiency in statistics
• Expertise on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
• Expertise on gender transformative programming
• Expertise on Disability and LGBTIQ+ inclusion is highly valued and strongly preferred
• Excellent spoken and written English. Knowledge of Portuguese is considered an asset.

9. Application 

Individuals and teams are invited to apply.

Please submit the following attachments:

• Attachment CV: CV(s) of consultant(s)
• Attachment Other: Technical proposal of 5 to 10 pages, outlining the approach for the work, including ethics and safeguarding approaches, timelines for the evaluation, example(s) of previous work, cost proposal including total amount and breakdown of headline costs in EUR.

In case you have any questions, you can send them until March 31th to Solène Vadé, PI Finland MEAL Specialist solene.vade@plan-international.org, and they will be answered on April 1st. 

Our deadline to receive proposals is April 13th, 2025. 

The proposals will be scored on the following aspects: 1) 50% technical, 2) 30% financial and 3) 20% experience. Shortlisted applicants may be requested to participate in an online interview. 

[1] SOGIESC stands for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics