Terms of Reference
External Evaluation of the Regional Refugee Sport for Development Programme in Southern Africa
Commissioned by: NIF – the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports
Indicative commencement: Week 1 starting 1 September
This Terms of Reference sets out the purpose, scope, methodology, deliverables and tender requirements for an external evaluation of NIF’s regional refugee sport for development programme in Southern Africa. The assignment is intended to generate credible evidence, practical learning and strategic recommendations to inform future programming, partnerships and donor dialogue.
1. Background
With support from NIF (the Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports), several partners in Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe are implementing a regional programme across five refugee camps in Southern Africa: three in Zambia, one in Malawi, and one in Zimbabwe. Our approach uses sport as a tool for protection, inclusion, and development within refugee settlements. Through structured sports activities, we promote girls' participation and gender equality, engage parents and caregivers, reduce idleness and negative coping mechanisms among young people, strengthen self-protection and life skills, support mental health and resilience, encourage social cohesion, and create safe spaces where refugees can develop confidence, leadership skills, and positive relationships.
The refugee sport programme was initiated by the Judo Association of Zambia in partnership with the Judo Associations of Malawi and Zimbabwe. The National Olympic Committees in Malawi and Zimbabwe have played key supporting roles, while in Zimbabwe the Volleyball Association and the NGO Tambai have expanded the programme by offering additional sports activities for refugee children and youth.
The programme uses sport as a tool to address challenges commonly faced by young people in refugee settlements. Through regular training and organised activities, it aims to provide safe and structured spaces for children and youth, reduce idleness and associated risks, strengthen self-confidence and resilience, and promote positive relationships across different groups within the refugee community.
A particular focus is placed on increasing girls' participation in sport by engaging parents, caregivers, community leaders and coaches to address barriers that may prevent girls from taking part. The programme also seeks to develop leadership skills, promote gender equality, strengthen social inclusion, and provide participants with knowledge and skills that can help them navigate everyday challenges.
To ensure local ownership and sustainability, the programme invests in training and mentoring coaches, including coaches recruited from the refugee communities themselves. Activities are implemented in close collaboration with local partners, camp authorities and community structures.
The project is now reaching around 2 500 refugees in 5 different refugee settlements, and aims to reach 4 000 by the end of the project period (2023-2027).
2. Purpose and use
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess whether the programme is achieving its intended objectives and producing meaningful benefits for the target groups. The evaluation should identify who benefits from the programme, how and to what extent they benefit, and whether there are differences in outcomes across participant groups.
The evaluation should also examine the programme's relevance, effectiveness, and added value in order to inform decisions about its future direction. Specifically, the findings should provide a basis for determining whether the programme should be continued, adapted, expanded or phased out.
The evaluation is intended to support both learning and accountability by generating practical, credible, and evidence-based findings for programme improvement, strategic decision-making, and reporting to donors and partners.
3. Objectives and evaluation questions
The overall objective is to assess the programme’s relevance, effectiveness and sustainability, and to identify lessons and recommendations for future design and implementation. The OECD/DAC criteria can be used, taking into account the programme context, stakeholder information needs and available evidence.
The evaluation should answer a focused set of questions, including but not limited to the following:
-
Relevance: To what extent does the programme respond to the needs, priorities and protection context of children and young people in the refugee camps, including gender-specific and inclusion-related needs?
-
Effectiveness: To what extent is the programme achieving its intended results related to psychosocial well-being, inclusion, gender equality, participation and local capacity development?
-
Sustainability: To what extent are the benefits, capacities, systems and partnerships likely to continue beyond the current period of NIF support?
Key additional questions might be:
-
Is the programme reaching the right people? If not – why?
-
Is it contributing to real change beyond the training sessions? If so, what types of changes are seen? And for whom?
Cross-cutting considerations shall be integrated throughout the evaluation rather than treated separately. These include safeguarding, child protection, gender equality, inclusion of vulnerable groups, conflict sensitivity, risk management and Do No Harm. The evaluation should also consider whether there are important trade-offs, unintended effects, or contextual factors that influence programme performance.
4. Scope
The evaluation shall cover the first 3,5 years of the programme period in one of the refugee camp locations in Zambia, one in Malawi and one in Zimbabwe. It shall assess the regional programme as a whole while also identifying relevant country-level or site-level variation where this is material to findings and recommendations.
The scope includes the main programme components, including sports activities, coach development, organisational capacity support and broader community engagement. The evaluation should draw on perspectives from participants, coaches, refugee-led actors, implementing partners, National Olympic Committees, judo associations, Tambai, relevant camp authorities, and selected external stakeholders such as UNHCR, Judo for Peace and ANOCA Zone 6, as feasible and appropriate.
5. Approach and methodology
The evaluator shall propose a feasible and robust methodology capable of answering the evaluation questions credibly. A mixed-methods approach is expected, combining qualitative and quantitative sources where appropriate. The methodology should explain the evaluation design, sampling approach, data sources (interviews/questionnaires), and how evidence will be analysed against the evaluation questions and criteria.
The evaluation should include appropriate field engagement in three camps, and stakeholder consultation to understand implementation realities and outcomes in context. Where primary data collection is limited, the evaluator must explain how this affects the strength of findings. The approach should also set out how the evaluation will address data gaps, attribution challenges and potential bias.
6. Quality standards
The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with recognised international good practice, including the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria and quality standards. Findings, conclusions and recommendations must be evidence-based, transparent, and clearly linked to sources and analysis.
The evaluator shall uphold high ethical standards throughout the assignment, including informed consent, confidentiality, cultural sensitivity, and appropriate safeguarding procedures when engaging children, young people and other vulnerable groups.
Do No Harm shall be applied throughout the evaluation process, including in stakeholder engagement, data handling, interpretation of findings and dissemination. The evaluator should identify ethical and operational risks and explain how these will be managed.
Minimum quality requirements include a clear evaluation matrix, transparent documentation of methods and sources, explicit discussion of limitations, and a clear distinction between findings, conclusions and recommendations.
The evaluator or evaluation team must be independent of programme implementation and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest. Appropriate internal quality assurance arrangements should be described in the proposal.
7. Management of the review/evaluation
NIF commissions the evaluation and holds overall responsibility for contract management, review of deliverables, and final approval. The assignment shall be carried out by an external evaluator or evaluation team with responsibility for ensuring an impartial and evidence-based assessment.
Given the learning-oriented nature of this evaluation, regular dialogue and collaboration between the evaluator and NIF are encouraged throughout the process. This includes joint discussions during the inception phase to refine the evaluation design, clarify expectations and ensure that the evaluation questions and methodology are relevant and useful for decision-making. NIF may designate focal points to support technical discussions, access to documentation, stakeholder engagement and logistical arrangements.
While maintaining regular interaction with NIF and other relevant stakeholders, the evaluator shall retain full responsibility for the evaluation approach, analysis, findings, conclusions and recommendations. Relevant stakeholders may be consulted throughout the process, including during the inception, data collection, validation and reporting stages, to enhance the quality, utility and factual accuracy of the evaluation.
8. Time frame and schedule
The assignment is expected to run over approximately 12-13 weeks. The indicative schedule below presents the main milestones and deliverables in a clear sequence. Final dates may be adjusted in consultation with the selected evaluator. Preferred start-up around September 1st 2026.
|
Phase |
Main activity |
Indicative timing |
Deliverable |
|
Inception phase |
Desk review, start-up meetings, refinement of methodology and evaluation matrix |
Weeks 1–2 |
Inception report |
|
Data collection phase |
Document review, interviews, consultations and any agreed field-based or remote data collection |
Weeks 3–8 |
Completed data collection and validated evidence base |
|
Analysis and drafting |
Analysis of findings, formulation of conclusions and recommendations, preparation of draft report |
Weeks 9–10 |
Draft report |
|
Review and feedback |
Validation workshop. Review of draft report by NIF and selected stakeholders, followed by evaluator revisions |
Week 11 |
Consolidated comments |
|
Finalisation |
Final revisions, submission of final report and presentation of key findings if requested |
Week 12 |
Final report and presentation |
9. Deliverables / reporting (and other dissemination)
The evaluator shall deliver, at minimum, the following outputs:
-
An inception report with refined methodology, evaluation matrix, work plan and risk/limitation assessment
-
A draft evaluation report for review and factual comments
-
A final evaluation report incorporating agreed revisions and a concise executive summary
-
A presentation or debrief of key findings, conclusions and recommendations for relevant stakeholders
Any proposed adjustments to the scope or questions must be justified and agreed before substantive fieldwork begins.
10. Budget
The financial proposal shall present a clear and realistic budget in USD, including professional fees, estimated level of effort, travel and subsistence, local costs, and any other relevant expenses. The budget should be aligned with the proposed methodology and work plan.
NIF will assess whether the financial proposal represents value for money in relation to the scope, methodological quality and feasibility of the proposed assignment.
The available budget ceiling for this assignment is approximately USD 15,000–25,000, inclusive of all expected costs, unless otherwise agreed in writing.
11. Tender Requirements
11.1 Submission Requirements
Interested candidates shall submit:
Technical Proposal (max. 10–15 pages):
The technical proposal should demonstrate a sound understanding of the assignment, present a proposed methodology and evaluation design, include a draft work plan and timeline, describe team composition and roles, and explain how quality assurance, ethics and safeguarding will be handled.
Financial Proposal:
The financial proposal must include a detailed budget in USD, a breakdown of professional fees and reimbursable costs, and a clear statement of assumptions.
Documentation:
Applicants shall submit CV(s) of the evaluator(s), examples of relevant previous work, and contact details for references relevant to comparable assignments.
11.2 Required Qualifications
The consultant team leader should possess the following expertise:
-
Documented team leader skills and a minimum of post-graduate degree in statistics, sociology or other related social science fields, with a minimum of 5 years of proven professional experience in managing evaluations/reviews and large data collections.
-
Extensive experience with reporting and design processes, including skills such as programme reviews, sampling, focus group interviews, etc.
Further, the team should have documented understanding in the following areas:
-
Rights Based Approach and Gender equality
-
Programme development
In addition, the consultancy:
-
Have previous experience with providing similar consultancy services for donors, NGOs, international research institute/universities or the UN organizations.
-
Have previously demonstrated the ability to deliver quality results within strict deadlines. This will be verified by the presentations of previously conducted projects relevant to the assignment. References, including contact information to previous clients must be provided.
-
All the staff that will be working for the consultancy should have a profound knowledge and experience of conducting large scale evaluations/reviews.
-
The consultancy team should include at least one person that have a proven knowledge and experience of sample selection, structured survey use, data processing/cleaning, and data analyses using both qualitative and quantitative analyses.
-
A gender balanced team should be assigned.
11.3 Evaluation of Proposals
Proposals will be assessed based on:
|
Criteria |
Weight |
|
Technical quality of the proposal, including understanding of the assignment and appropriateness of methodology |
40% |
|
Relevant experience, qualifications and team composition |
30% |
|
Financial proposal and value for money |
20% |
|
Regional, contextual and safeguarding-related experience |
10% |
Only proposals meeting minimum technical requirements will be considered.
Applications submitted to: susannebrovold.hvidsten@idrettsforbundet.no
tel_ +47 40203355