Consultancy: Independent Evaluation of the Strategic Partnership Programme II (SPA II), Zimbabwe Country Programme

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Independent Evaluation of the Strategic Partnership Programme II (SPA II)

Zimbabwe Country Programme

Evaluation period: January 2022-December 2026

Evidence cut-off date: 31 December 2026

Geographical focus: Binga, Chimanimani, Chipinge and Mbire districts

Commissioning organisation: ActionAid Zimbabwe

Strategic partnership: ActionAid Denmark (AADK) / Danida

Document status: Final ToR for external consultant solicitation

26 October 2026

Document information

• Title: Terms of Reference: Independent Evaluation of SPA II – Zimbabwe Country Programme
• Commissioner: ActionAid Zimbabwe
• Strategic partnership: ActionAid Denmark (AADK) and Danish International development Agency (Danida)
• Evaluation period: January 2022 to 31 December 2026, reflecting the one-year extension of SPA II
• Evidence cut-off: 31 December 2026. Evidence emerging after this date may be noted separately but will not be treated as evidence within the principal evaluation period.
• Geographical coverage: Binga, Chimanimani, Chipinge and Mbire districts, with national-level and cross-level stakeholders engaged where relevant
• Confirmed implementing partners in scope: Green Governance Zimbabwe Trust (GGZT); Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre (FPC); Basilwizi Trust; Young Africa
• Evaluation type: Independent, summative and learning-oriented evaluation, with formative recommendations for future programming
• Primary framework: OECD DAC evaluation criteria, AEA Guiding Principles and relevant programme evaluation standards
• Procurement details: Submission deadline, contact person and submission channel will be stated in the accompanying procurement notice. These administrative details do not alter the evaluation scope or requirements.

1. Introduction and background

ActionAid Zimbabwe commissions an independent evaluation of the Zimbabwe Country Programme implemented under the Strategic Partnership Programme II (SPA II), in partnership with ActionAid Denmark (AADK) and supported by Danida. SPA II was initially framed for 2022–2025 and was extended by one additional year. This evaluation therefore covers January 2022 to 31 December 2026, with 31 December 2026 as the evidence cut-off date.

SPA II’s global objective is to contribute to societies becoming more just, feminist, green and resilient. In Zimbabwe, the contextualised programme objective is that by 2026 young people, especially young women (with a programme ambition of 60%), in Binga, Chimanimani, Chipinge and Mbire know their role and take steps to participate meaningfully in decision-making bodies and processes and influence an enabling environment for feminist and green economic alternatives that improve livelihoods and resilience to climate-induced shocks and stresses.

The programme operates in a context shaped by intersecting economic, climate, governance and civic-space pressures. Rural young people, particularly young women and people facing marginalisation, may experience limited livelihood opportunities, constrained access to public services, climate-related shocks, unequal care burdens and risks associated with civic participation. The evaluation must examine these contextual factors as influences on programme delivery and outcomes, without assuming that context alone explains success or underperformance.

This is a country-level evaluation. It is not an evaluation of the entire global SPA II portfolio. It should assess the Zimbabwe programme’s results, approaches, partnerships and contribution pathways, and consider relevant connections with regional and global support mechanisms where these influenced Zimbabwe outcomes.

The approved/revised Zimbabwe Theory of Change and results framework, logical framework, monitoring and evaluation plan, periodic reporting and other programme records will be made available to the selected consultants through the commissioning office. Consultants are expected to assess these documents and use them as the primary programme-specific reference points.

1. Purpose, objectives and intended use

2.1 Overall purpose

To provide an independent, credible and rights-holder-centred assessment of the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of SPA II in Zimbabwe over the period January 2022–December 2026, and to generate practical recommendations for accountability, learning, adaptive management and future programme design.

2.2 Specific objectives

• Assess progress against the Zimbabwe programme’s contextualised overall objective, strategic objectives, intermediate outcomes and indicators, taking account of the one-year extension and the evidence cut-off date.
• Assess the significance, distribution and durability of intended and unintended outcomes, particularly for young people, young women and groups facing intersecting forms of exclusion.
• Examine the plausibility and strength of the programme’s contribution to observed changes, including advocacy, youth leadership, movement-building, climate justice, agroecology, green livelihoods and resilience outcomes relevant to the approved results framework.
• Assess the quality of partnerships, localisation, participation, accountability, feminist practice and shifts in power, resources and decision-making.
• Assess the coherence of programme components and their relationship with relevant external actors and the wider SPA II capacity-support ecosystem where applicable.
• Examine the use of resources, implementation efficiency, adaptive management and available evidence on value for money.
• Identify lessons, scalable or adaptable practices, limitations and actionable recommendations for ActionAid Zimbabwe, partners, AADK, Danida where appropriate, and right-holders.

2.3 Intended users and use

• ActionAid Zimbabwe leadership and programme teams: Strategic decisions, adaptive management, programme quality, partnership practice and design of future interventions.
• Four confirmed implementing partners: Joint learning, accountability, refinement of approaches and strengthening of locally led results.
• Young people, young women, movements and other right-holders: Accessible feedback on programme performance, recognition of diverse experiences and accountability for commitments.
• ActionAid Denmark and relevant federation structures: Cross-country learning, assessment of programme approaches and capacity-support models.
• Danida and other relevant stakeholders, as appropriate: Accountability and evidence on results, implementation and learning under SPA II.

The evaluation must be useful without becoming an advocacy exercise for the programme. It should fairly document positive, mixed, weak, negative and unintended results, including evidence that challenges programme assumptions.

1. Programme overview and strategic logic

3.2 Theory of Change

The revised Zimbabwe Theory of Change posits that if young people especially young women are equipped with skills and knowledge to improve livelihoods through feminist economic alternatives, participate meaningfully in decision-making, demand accountability from governments and other duty-bearers, and organise through movements, then they can improve wellbeing and agency and influence policy and public-service accountability before, during and after disasters.

The ToC recognises assumptions and risks relating to youth engagement, civic-space constraints, opportunities to engage duty-bearers, climate and economic shocks, and the capacity to sustain collective action. The evaluation must test these assumptions against evidence and examine how programme actors adapted when assumptions did not hold. The ToC should be reconstructed or refined only where needed to clarify the actual logic and should not replace the approved programme documentation.

3.3 Confirmed implementing partners

The following four implementing partners are confirmed as within the evaluation scope:

• Green Governance Zimbabwe Trust (GGZT): Green governance, citizen participation in natural-resource management, climate justice and youth advocacy, including the Climate Youth Hub.
• Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre (FPC): Technical capacity-building for agroecology, sustainable land-based food systems, youth skills and confidence, and technical support to agroecological policy work.
• Basilwizi Trust: Community-led development in the Zambezi Valley and support for young people to advocate for inclusion in decision-making processes that affect them, particularly in Binga.
• Young Africa: Youth skills development, entrepreneurship and employment pathways; in 2026, strengthening access to skills, economic opportunities and engagement platforms supporting feminist and green economic alternatives, youth agency and resilience.

The evaluation should also consider relevant social movements, networks, right-holder groups, government and local authorities, civil society, private-sector actors, and programme support mechanisms where they materially contributed to or were affected by SPA II. These are stakeholders or collaborators unless programme records establish a separate formal implementing-partner status. The evaluation must not presume that every stakeholder contributed equally or that every thematic area was implemented in every district.

1. Scope and boundaries

4.1 Time period

The evaluation covers the full implementation period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2026, inclusive. The evidence cut-off date is 31 December 2026, reflecting SPA II’s one-year extension. Results and events after this cut-off may be mentioned separately as post-period developments but must not be blended into the main assessment of results within the evaluation period.

The evaluation team should distinguish between: (a) results achieved during the period; (b) outcomes emerging during the period but not yet mature; and (c) plausible prospects for sustainability after programme support. It should not assume that outcomes with long causal pathways can be fully observed by the cut-off date.

4.2 Geographic scope

The primary geographic focus is Binga, Chimanimani, Chipinge and Mbire districts. The evaluation may include national-level or other locations where required to assess policy change, partner activity, movement-building, cross-district learning or links with regional/global support. The evaluator must explain the selection of sites and avoid implying full geographic coverage if sampling is purposeful.

4.3 Thematic and organisational scope

• Progress against the approved Zimbabwe overall objective, strategic objectives, intermediate outcomes, indicators and relevant assumptions.
• Partner contributions, partnership quality, localisation and the relationship between ActionAid Zimbabwe and the four confirmed implementing partners.
• Young people’s and young women’s leadership, agency, meaningful participation and collective action.
• Climate justice, agroecology, green and feminist economic alternatives, livelihoods and resilience, where supported by programme design and evidence.
• Advocacy, public narrative, policy/practice influence, civic participation and accountability, including risks and adaptive approaches in restricted civic space.
• Protection, crisis resilience and humanitarian-development-peace coherence where these form part of the Zimbabwe programme’s approved results and implementation.
• Capacity support and connections with Global Platforms, People4Change, TCDC and GOLD/MOVE where relevant to Zimbabwe’s results.
• Resource use, management, adaptation, unintended effects and prospects for sustainability.

4.4 Boundaries

The evaluation is not required to conduct a full evaluation of each global capacity unit, every external stakeholder, or every intervention undertaken by ActionAid Zimbabwe outside SPA II. It should not claim causal attribution to SPA II where outcomes are produced by multiple actors or wider contextual forces. The evaluation team must use the approved country results framework and programme records to determine which outcomes and activities are genuinely within scope.

4.5 Cross-cutting lenses

• Human rights-based approach: participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and transparency.
• Feminist and intersectional analysis: gendered power, care burdens, voice, leadership, control over resources and differential outcomes.
• Youth leadership and meaningful participation: distinguish attendance from influence over decisions, resources and agendas.
• Locally led change and localisation: ownership, authority, capacity, resources and accountability to local constituencies.
• Leave No One Behind: assess whose needs and voices are included or excluded, using available and ethically feasible disaggregation.
• Do no harm and conflict/civic-space sensitivity: assess whether activities or data collection created or mitigated risk.

1. Evaluation criteria and questions

The evaluation will apply the six OECD DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) thoughtfully and in relation to the evaluation’s purpose. The criteria are lenses for judgement, not a checklist to be applied mechanically. Cross-cutting lenses in Section 4.5 should inform the analysis across criteria.

EQ1. Effectiveness and impact: results and contribution

To what extent has the Zimbabwe Country Programme contributed to progress toward its contextualised overall objective and relevant strategic objectives and outcomes during 2022–2026, and what significant intended, unintended, positive, negative or differential changes occurred?

• What progress is demonstrated against the approved indicators, targets and qualitative outcomes, taking account of baselines, data quality and changes to targets or implementation during the extension?
• What significant changes occurred in youth leadership, meaningful participation, collective action, accountability, climate justice, agroecology, green livelihoods and resilience, where relevant to the results framework?
• Who benefited, who did not, and how did outcomes vary by gender, age, disability, location or other relevant dimensions?
• What plausible contribution pathways connect programme activities and partner actions to observed outcomes, and what alternative explanations or contextual factors influenced them?
• What unintended outcomes, negative effects, missed opportunities or implementation gaps were identified?

EQ2. Relevance and Theory of Change

How relevant and adaptive were the programme’s objectives, strategies and approaches to the priorities, rights and changing contexts of right-holders especially young people and young women and to the capacities and priorities of partners?

• To what extent did programme choices respond to right-holder priorities and the realities of the four target districts?
• Which Theory of Change assumptions held, failed or required adaptation, and what evidence supports that assessment?
• How did programme actors respond to civic-space constraints, economic pressure, climate shocks and changes in the operating environment?
• How consistently were feminist, human rights-based, youth-led and locally led approaches reflected in programme decisions and practice?

EQ3. Coherence

How coherent was the Zimbabwe programme internally and externally, and to what extent did its components and partnerships reinforce one another?

• How complementary were partner interventions and the programme’s work across the three strategic objectives?
• How effectively did ActionAid Zimbabwe, partners, movements and relevant duty-bearers coordinate, share learning and avoid duplication?
• Where relevant, how did national, local, regional and global programme support connect to Zimbabwe outcomes?
• Did links between development, resilience and humanitarian/protection approaches strengthen results where these were part of the programme?

EQ4. Sustainability and localisation

How likely are significant outcomes and capacities to continue beyond the programme period, and to what extent has locally led change strengthened the agency, ownership and influence of young people, movements and partners?

• What capabilities, networks, relationships, institutional practices, livelihood assets or policy commitments remain at the cut-off date?
• Has decision-making power, control of resources or accountability shifted toward local partners, youth-led organisations, movements or right-holders?
• What financial, institutional, environmental, political or safety risks may undermine continuation?
• What evidence supports the likelihood of continuation, and what remains uncertain?

EQ5. Efficiency, adaptation and value for money

How efficiently were resources converted into outputs and outcomes, and how effectively did programme management adapt to changing circumstances?

• Were resources and implementation arrangements proportionate to the priorities, reach and results documented?
• What do financial, activity and outcome records indicate about economy, efficiency and effectiveness, subject to the quality and comparability of data?
• What delays, bottlenecks, coordination costs or trade-offs affected delivery, and how were these managed?
• What evidence is available on value for money, and what conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the available data?
• How did the one-year extension influence sequencing, implementation, resourcing, result maturity and learning?

EQ6. Learning and future direction

What should ActionAid Zimbabwe and its partners sustain, adapt, scale, discontinue or investigate further in future programming?

• Which approaches appear promising, for whom and under what conditions?
• What lessons emerge about partnership, youth organising, feminist green alternatives, capacity support and working in constrained civic space?
• What should be prioritised in future programme design, and what evidence or capability gaps should be addressed?

At inception, the evaluation team may refine sub-questions and methods in consultation with the commissioner and reference group. The six core questions and approved scope may not be materially changed without written approval.

1. Evaluation design and methodology

6.1 Overall design

The evaluator will propose an independent, theory-informed, mixed-methods design combining quantitative analysis of existing programme data with qualitative and participatory inquiry. The design should be proportionate to the scale and complexity of the country programme, the available evidence, the security context and the time and budget. It must be capable of identifying both results and plausible contribution without overstating causality.

6.2 Mandatory methodological components

• Evaluability assessment: assess the clarity and consistency of the results framework, availability and quality of monitoring data, baselines, targets, indicator definitions, disaggregation, reporting completeness and the feasibility of answering each question.
• Structured document review: review the country Theory of Change, results framework, logical framework, M&E plan, periodic reporting, partner reports, workplans, budgets and expenditure, monitoring data, reviews, learning products, risk registers and relevant contextual evidence.
• Theory of Change testing: reconstruct or test the programme’s causal pathways and assumptions, including the relationship between capacity strengthening, youth agency, collective action, policy/practice influence, livelihoods and resilience.
• Quantitative analysis: analyse existing monitoring and outcome data where quality permits; compare actuals with targets and baselines; examine trends, missing data, inconsistencies and disaggregation. Do not infer statistical significance or population representativeness without a suitable design.
• Qualitative inquiry: conduct key informant interviews, focus group discussions, participatory workshops or other justified methods with right-holders, young people, young women, partners, movements, staff, relevant duty-bearers and other stakeholders.
• Purposeful sampling: propose a transparent sampling framework that covers all four confirmed implementing partners and considers the four target districts, strategic objectives, different stakeholder roles, less-heard voices and safe participation.
• Contribution analysis: use a structured contribution-analysis approach for selected priority outcomes. Outcome harvesting, process tracing, most significant change or case studies may be used as complementary methods where suitable.
• Triangulation and negative-case analysis: test claims against multiple sources, seek disconfirming evidence, document conflicting accounts and explain how final judgements were reached.
• Participatory validation: offer accessible opportunities for stakeholders to comment on interpretations and factual accuracy while protecting evaluator independence and the confidentiality of participants.
• Limitations and confidence: document limitations, data gaps, selection bias, recall risks and the strength of evidence behind major conclusions.

6.3 Sampling and inclusion

The proposal and inception report must specify the sampling logic, proposed sites, participant groups, approximate sample sizes or ranges, recruitment approach, inclusion safeguards and rationale for any exclusions. Sampling must be feasible and safe. It should include variation across partner contributions, geography, gender and age groups and, where relevant and safe, disability and other intersecting forms of marginalisation.

The evaluator must not describe a purposive sample as statistically representative. If surveys are proposed, the evaluator must justify their added value, sampling frame, instrument, sample size, analysis and ethical feasibility. New surveys are not mandatory.

6.4 Contribution and systems-change assessment

For each selected outcome, the evaluator should: (i) state the outcome and intended change pathway; (ii) identify programme activities and partner contributions; (iii) assemble evidence for the links in the pathway; (iv) assess assumptions and contextual influences; (v) test alternative explanations and contradictory evidence; and (vi) state the confidence and limits of the contribution judgement. Systems-change analysis should examine changes in relationships, rules, norms, institutional practices, public narratives, access to resources and decision-making power where relevant.

6.5 Data analysis and reporting

The evaluator must provide a clear analysis plan covering qualitative coding or thematic synthesis, quantitative analysis, disaggregation, triangulation, contribution claims and the handling of contradictory evidence. Findings should be separated from evaluative judgements, conclusions and recommendations. Each major judgement should be traceable to evidence and should state relevant limitations.

6.6 Inception and evaluability gate

The inception report is a formal quality gate. Fieldwork should begin only after the commissioner has approved the evaluation matrix, sampling approach, tools, workplan, safeguarding arrangements, data-management protocol and risk assessment. The evaluator should identify any question that cannot be answered credibly and propose an alternative or explicit limitation before data collection.

1. Ethics, safeguarding, inclusion and data protection

Ethical practice is mandatory. The evaluation must respect the dignity, rights, safety and agency of all participants and must not expose activists, young people, communities or partners to avoidable risk. The evaluator is responsible for applying appropriate ethical standards throughout design, data collection, analysis, storage and reporting.

• Informed and voluntary consent: explain purpose, use, confidentiality limits, voluntary participation and the right to decline or withdraw without consequence.
• Do no harm and civic-space sensitivity: conduct context-specific risk assessments, avoid collecting unnecessary sensitive information and use safe recruitment, venues, communication channels and reporting practices.
• Confidentiality and anonymisation: do not identify participants or attribute sensitive statements without explicit informed consent and a clear risk assessment. Avoid small-cell reporting that could indirectly identify individuals.
• Safeguarding: comply with applicable ActionAid safeguarding requirements and referral procedures. Confirm reporting routes and responsibilities before fieldwork. Any concern involving a child or vulnerable participant must be handled under applicable procedures and law.
• Children and participants under 18: avoid involving minors unless there is a clear evaluative need, appropriate approvals, child-sensitive methods, informed guardian consent where required and the young person’s assent.
• Gender and inclusion: use culturally and linguistically appropriate approaches and make participation accessible for persons with disabilities and people facing other barriers.
• Data security: minimise collection of personal data; use secure storage and transfer; restrict access; agree ownership, retention and deletion arrangements with the commissioner; and do not share identifiable raw data in reports or public products.
• Conflict of interest and independence: disclose actual, potential or perceived conflicts; maintain independence in analysis and conclusions; and document how substantive disagreements are handled.
• Feedback and reciprocity: provide accessible feedback on the evaluation’s purpose and, where feasible, share findings in formats appropriate to participating right-holders.

The evaluator must submit an ethics, safeguarding and data-management plan with the inception report. The commissioner will identify the relevant ActionAid policies and required approval route before fieldwork.

1. Deliverables and acceptance criteria

• 1. Inception report and evaluation protocol: Refined evaluation matrix; evaluability and data-quality assessment; tested/reconstructed ToC; detailed methods and sampling; data-collection tools; analysis plan; fieldwork and stakeholder plan; risk, ethics, safeguarding and data-management protocols; workplan; limitations and mitigation. Approval required before fieldwork.
• 2. Fieldwork completion briefing: Summary of activities and coverage; deviations from approved design; emerging evidence gaps and risks; next analytical steps. No sensitive identifiable information.
• 3. Draft evaluation report: Complete report answering all approved questions; findings and judgements traceable to evidence; balanced analysis; limitations; conclusions; prioritised recommendations; annexes. Draft must be suitable for technical and factual review.
• 4. Validation and learning session: Accessible presentation or workshop to test interpretations and support learning. The evaluator retains responsibility for independent findings and explains how feedback was treated.
• 5. Final evaluation report: Editable Word and accessible PDF; executive summary; programme and context; purpose and scope; methods and limitations; findings by question/criterion; conclusions; recommendations; annexes and source list. All material comments must be considered and unresolved disagreements handled transparently.
• 6. Recommendations and management-response matrix: Prioritised recommendations with rationale, proposed responsible party, timeframe, follow-up indicator and suggested management response. Responsibility and deadlines are proposals until confirmed by ActionAid.
• 7. Learning product: Concise learning brief or presentation suitable for decision-makers, partners and right-holders, using accessible language and protecting confidentiality.
• 8. Technical annexes: Final matrix; sampling and tools; list of documents reviewed; limitations; evaluator declarations; data-quality assessment; and any non-sensitive supporting tables.

8.1 Final report acceptance checklist

• All approved evaluation questions are answered or the report explains why a question could not be answered credibly.
• Major findings and judgements are traceable to credible evidence and the analysis is transparent.
• Conclusions follow from findings; recommendations are specific, prioritised, feasible and linked to evidence.
• Positive, mixed, weak, negative and unintended results are fairly represented.
• Relevant disaggregation and power analysis are included where data quality and ethical feasibility permit.
• Contribution claims acknowledge competing explanations and limits to causal inference.
• Limitations and contradictory evidence are clearly reported.
• Confidentiality, safeguarding and accessibility requirements are met.
• The executive summary is consistent with the full report and recommendations matrix.

8.2 Review and revision process

The commissioner will consolidate comments and provide one coordinated set of comments for each formal review round. The evaluator should respond to substantive comments in a comment-response matrix. Factual checking is permitted; stakeholders may not require the evaluator to remove or distort evidence-based findings. The final schedule and turnaround periods will be agreed at contracting and included in the approved workplan.

1. Indicative workplan and governance

The evaluator should propose a realistic workplan and number of professional days, showing dependencies, deliverable dates, stakeholder engagement, travel and analysis time. The following sequence is mandatory; exact dates will be agreed at contracting.

1. Mobilisation and desk review

Core activities: Kick-off; document receipt; stakeholder mapping; initial context and data review.

Output / decision gate: Agreed mobilisation plan and document request list.

1. Inception and evaluability

Core activities: Evaluate data quality; test ToC; refine matrix; design sample/tools; complete risk and ethics protocols.

Output / decision gate: Approved inception report before fieldwork.

1. Data collection

Core activities: Interviews, focus groups, participatory sessions, document/data follow-up; coverage across partners and relevant districts.

Output / decision gate: Fieldwork completion briefing.

1. Analysis and draft report

Core activities: Triangulation; contribution analysis; quantitative and qualitative synthesis; prepare findings and recommendations.

Output / decision gate: Draft evaluation report and annexes.

1. Validation and finalisation

Core activities: Accessible validation; review comments; comment-response matrix; final report and learning product.

Output / decision gate: Accepted final report and action matrix.

9.1 Governance

ActionAid Zimbabwe is the commissioning office and will manage the contract, provide programme documentation, facilitate appropriate introductions, coordinate access to partners and stakeholders, consolidate feedback and make formal acceptance decisions. A reference/advisory group may support technical quality, contextual interpretation and learning. Its role is advisory; it does not direct data collection or control independent findings.

The evaluator is accountable for the methodological design, ethical conduct, analysis, judgements, report quality and delivery of outputs. The commissioner is accountable for timely access to documents and stakeholders, coordinated feedback and decisions on acceptance. Partner and stakeholder participation must not be treated as a substitute for independent analysis.

1. Roles and responsibilities

• ActionAid Zimbabwe / commissioning office: Provide ToR and available documents; clarify programme scope; facilitate introductions and safe access; appoint reviewers; coordinate comments; approve inception design; protect independence; accept deliverables; coordinate management response.
• Evaluation team: Maintain independence; conduct evaluability assessment; propose and execute approved methods; obtain informed consent; protect participants and data; document limitations; triangulate findings; deliver outputs to schedule; respond to comments transparently.
• Four implementing partners: Provide relevant reports and records; facilitate appropriate engagement with staff and right-holders; support safe access without selecting only favourable participants; review factual accuracy; contribute to learning.
• Reference/advisory group, if constituted: Advise on evaluation design and contextual interpretation; identify evidence gaps; support learning and use; respect confidentiality and evaluator independence.
• Right-holders and other stakeholders: Participate voluntarily; share perspectives based on their own experience; review accessible summaries where feasible; retain the right to decline participation.

1. Risks, limitations and quality assurance

• Incomplete or inconsistent monitoring data: Conduct a data-quality assessment; triangulate with qualitative and documentary evidence; state which indicators cannot be assessed reliably.
• Restricted civic space or risks to activists: Use context-specific risk assessment, safe communication and interview arrangements, anonymisation and non-attribution; suspend or adapt methods if risk becomes unacceptable.
• Unequal voice or elite capture: Use purposeful and transparent recruitment; include less-heard voices and dissenting perspectives; avoid relying solely on organisational gatekeepers.
• Recall and social-desirability bias: Use multiple sources, event timelines, documentary records and disconfirming evidence; distinguish reported experience from independently corroborated claims.
• Attribution challenges: Use contribution analysis and assess alternative explanations; do not attribute system-level change solely to SPA II without sufficient evidence.
• Geographic and time constraints: Justify site selection; state exclusions; avoid claims of full coverage where the sample is purposive.
• Sensitive or identifiable information: Minimise collection, restrict access, anonymise reporting and apply agreed retention/deletion rules.
• Pressure to overstate positive results or suppress criticism: Protect evaluator independence; document material disagreements; report evidence-based findings fairly.

13.1 Quality assurance

The evaluator must apply systematic inquiry, methodological competence, integrity, respect for people, equity and accountability. Quality assurance should include peer review within the evaluation team, a documented chain from evidence to findings, source triangulation, negative-case analysis, consistency checks between report sections and an explicit review of whether conclusions are supported by evidence.

13.2 Use and ownership of outputs

Final reports and agreed learning products will be provided to ActionAid Zimbabwe in editable and accessible formats. Ownership, licensing, permitted secondary use and retention of raw data will be agreed in the contract and data-management plan. Any public use of sensitive data or participant quotations requires appropriate consent and risk assessment.

1. Indicative evaluation matrix

The matrix below defines the minimum analytical coverage. The evaluator must expand it in the inception report by specifying evidence sources, indicators or qualitative signals, methods, disaggregation, sampling and judgement standards. The approved Zimbabwe results framework and Theory of Change will be supplied to the selected consultants and should be used to refine this matrix.

EQ1 Effectiveness and impact

Judgement dimensions: Progress against approved outcomes and indicators; significance and distribution of outcomes; unintended effects; plausible contribution; alternative explanations.

Indicative evidence and methods: Results framework and monitoring data; partner reports; participant and stakeholder accounts; policy/practice records; outcome harvesting; contribution analysis; case studies.

EQ2 Relevance and ToC

Judgement dimensions: Fit with right-holder priorities and context; validity of assumptions; responsiveness and adaptation; consistency with rights-based, feminist and youth-led practice.

Indicative evidence and methods: Revised Zimbabwe ToC; programme design and adaptation records; interviews and focus groups; participant feedback; context analysis.

EQ3 Coherence

Judgement dimensions: Complementarity across partners and strategic objectives; internal coordination; connections to external actors and relevant regional/global support; avoidance of duplication.

Indicative evidence and methods: Partner plans and reports; coordination records; interviews with ActionAid, partners, movements and duty-bearers; process tracing where useful.

EQ4 Sustainability and localisation

Judgement dimensions: Local ownership; durability of capabilities, networks and results; shifts in power/resources; risks to continuation.

Indicative evidence and methods: Capacity and partnership records; evidence of continued practice; resource and governance arrangements; right-holder and partner perspectives; risk analysis.

EQ5 Efficiency and adaptation

Judgement dimensions: Resource use relative to activities and results; implementation bottlenecks; adaptations; value-for-money signals and data limitations.

Indicative evidence and methods: Budgets and expenditure; workplans; activity and output data; delivery timelines; staff/partner interviews; cost and resource-use analysis where feasible.

EQ6 Learning and future direction

Judgement dimensions: Transferable lessons; approaches to sustain, adapt, scale, discontinue or test; implications for future programming.

Indicative evidence and methods: Synthesis across all methods; comparative partner/site cases; validation session; evidence-strength assessment.

Cross-cutting analysis to apply to all questions

• Gender, age, disability and other relevant intersecting inequalities, where ethically and practically measurable.
• Meaningful participation versus attendance; agency, influence and control over decisions and resources.
• Power relations, local ownership, accountability and feminist practice.
• Contextual drivers, risks, unintended effects and adaptive responses.
• Evidence quality, contradictory evidence, contribution confidence and limitations.

Annex 1. Key documents to be made available to the evaluation team

The commissioning office will provide or facilitate access to the following documents, subject to availability, confidentiality and safe data-sharing arrangements:

• SPA II application and strategic partnership programme documentation.
• Approved/revised Zimbabwe Theory of Change, including the approved revision dated 17 April 2026 where applicable.
• Zimbabwe programme results framework and results alignment documents.
• SPA II logical framework and indicator definitions, targets, baselines and means of verification.
• SPA II monitoring and evaluation plan and periodic reporting templates.
• Annual, periodic and partner reports for 2022–2026, including available 2026 reporting up to the evidence cut-off.
• Workplans, partner agreements, budgets, expenditure summaries and relevant financial records.
• Monitoring datasets and indicator trackers, with data dictionaries and disaggregation notes where available.
• Relevant programme reviews, learning products, baseline studies, outcome records and evaluation reports.
• Records of advocacy, policy engagement, movement-building, capacity support and relevant public narrative or practice changes.
• Risk registers, safeguarding and referral protocols, and relevant data protection requirements.
• Relevant contextual studies and policy documents, including climate, livelihoods, youth participation and civic-space material.

The evaluation team should maintain a document review log identifying each source, date/period covered, relevance, quality limitations and the evaluation question(s) it informs.

References and standards

• ActionAid Denmark (AADK). Strategic Partnerships 2022–2025 Application Form (SPA II), including relevant programme-wide objectives and capacity-support model.
• ActionAid Zimbabwe. SPA II Zimbabwe Programme Results Framework and Results Alignment Table (latest approved version supplied to consultants).
• ActionAid Zimbabwe. SPA II Logical Framework and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.
• ActionAid Zimbabwe. Revised Zimbabwe Theory of Change, approved 17 April 2026.
• OECD (2021). Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/543e84ed-en
• OECD (2010). Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083905-en
• American Evaluation Association. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles
• American Evaluation Association. Evaluator Competencies. https://www.eval.org/About/Competencies-Standards/AEA-Evaluator-Competencies
• Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Program Evaluation Standards. https://www.eval.org/About/Competencies-Standards/Program-Evaluation-Standards
• OECD. Applying a Human Rights and Gender Equality Lens to the OECD Evaluation Criteria. https://doi.org/10.1787/9aaf2f98-en

1. Required evaluator profile

10.1 Team composition

A team of two evaluators is preferred, but a single evaluator or a larger team may be proposed if the bidder demonstrates that the design can be delivered safely and to the required quality. The proposal must identify a team leader and clarify each member’s responsibilities and level of effort.

10.2 Essential qualifications and experience

• Demonstrated experience leading independent evaluations of complex development, rights-based, youth-focused or humanitarian/resilience programmes.
• Strong competence in mixed-methods evaluation, theory-based evaluation, contribution analysis and triangulation.
• Experience applying OECD DAC criteria and relevant professional evaluation principles.
• Demonstrated competence in human rights-based, feminist and intersectional evaluation and meaningful participation of right-holders.
• Experience assessing advocacy, policy/practice influence, collective action, movement-building or systems change.
• Competence in ethics, safeguarding, data protection and research in politically sensitive or restricted civic-space settings.
• Excellent analytical writing and presentation skills in English.
• Capacity to work in Zimbabwe, including knowledge of the country context and appropriate language capability within the team.

10.3 Desirable experience

• Climate justice, agroecology, green economy, climate-resilient livelihoods or youth employment.
• Localisation, power-shifting, partnership quality and organisational capacity strengthening.
• Humanitarian-development-peace coherence, disaster resilience and protection.
• Outcome harvesting, process tracing, most significant change or systems-change methods.
• Facilitation in relevant local languages and experience of accessible dissemination to right-holders.

10.4 Independence and conflicts

All proposed team members must declare actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest, including prior involvement in programme design or delivery, financial interests or relationships that could reasonably call independence into question. The commissioner will assess materiality and may request mitigation or replacement.

1. Proposal submission requirements and selection

11.1 Technical proposal

Interested consultants should submit to [email protected] a concise technical proposal, preferably no longer than 10–12 pages excluding CVs and annexes, covering:

• Understanding of the ToR, programme context, extension period and principal evaluation challenges.
• Proposed evaluation design, methods and rationale against the six core questions.
• Approach to evaluability, contribution analysis, sampling, inclusion, triangulation and limitations.
• Ethics, safeguarding, civic-space risk management and data protection.
• Workplan, deliverables, team roles, level of effort and availability.
• Relevant examples of similar assignments and at least two referees or client contacts, where available.
• CVs and conflict-of-interest declarations for all proposed team members.

11.2 Financial proposal

Provide a separate, itemised financial proposal in the currency specified in the procurement notice. Show professional fees and days by team member and phase, travel and accommodation, transport, translation/interpreting, transcription, data collection, accessibility, taxes and any other direct costs. State assumptions and exclusions clearly. Costs must be realistic, transparent and consistent with the technical workplan. The procurement notice will specify the currency, submission channel, deadline and contact details.

11.3 Selection process

Proposals will be assessed in accordance with ActionAid’s applicable procurement policy. The recommended assessment model is 75% technical quality and 25% financial proposal, subject to procurement-policy confirmation in the solicitation. Only proposals meeting the required technical threshold should proceed to financial comparison.

• Understanding of the ToR and Zimbabwe SPA II context: 15%
• Evaluation design, methodology, evaluability and contribution analysis: 25%
• Human rights, feminist/intersectional practice, inclusion, ethics and safeguarding: 15%
• Team qualifications and relevant experience: 20%
• Feasibility of workplan, deliverables and quality assurance: 10%
• Total technical score: 85%
• Financial proposal: 15%
• Total combined score: 100%

The weighting above is a recommended scoring structure for the solicitation and must be aligned with ActionAid procurement rules before publication. The procurement notice will identify the final approved weights and minimum technical threshold. The commissioner reserves the right to request clarification, verify references and assess conflicts of interest.

Annex 2. Proposal assessment rubric

Understanding and context

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Accurate understanding of the Zimbabwe programme, 2022–2026 period, extension, four partners, districts and contextual risks.

Indicative score: 15

Design and methodology

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Coherent mixed-methods design; feasible sampling; strong evaluability and contribution-analysis approach; explicit triangulation and limitations.

Indicative score: 25

Ethics and inclusion

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Robust safeguarding, civic-space risk mitigation, informed consent, data protection, gender/intersectional analysis and right-holder participation.

Indicative score: 15

Team competence

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Relevant evaluation leadership, analytical capability, context knowledge, complementary roles and credible examples of similar work.

Indicative score: 20

Workplan and quality assurance

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Realistic schedule, clear deliverables, sufficient analysis time, risk management, peer review and comment-response process.

Indicative score: 10

Technical subtotal

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Minimum threshold to be set in the procurement notice.

Indicative score: 85

Financial proposal

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Transparent, complete, realistic and value-conscious budget aligned with the technical offer.

Indicative score: 15

Combined total

What a strong proposal demonstrates: Technical and financial scores combined using the approved procurement formula.

Indicative score: 100

Proposed Assignment Days: 30 Days

How to apply: email a technical proposal and a separate itemised financial proposal to [email protected] (see section 11). Submission deadline, contact person and submission channel will be stated in the accompanying procurement notice. Assignment length: 30 days.