Action for Choice 2 End of Project Evaluation TORs


These TORs are for the end-of-project evaluation for the Action for Choice 2 project which was implemented in 10 state universities[1] in Zimbabwe and the proximal colleges through the Hub and Spoke model. The project was funded by the Embassy of Sweden in Harare for the period September 2021-August 2024. The main purpose of this final project review and evaluation is to facilitate a process that will document project outputs, outcomes, and impact. Eventually, the process should also mobilize the various stakeholders to act based on its documentation.


  • To assess the project’s performance and achievements vis-à-vis the project’s overall objectives and to conduct an impact assessment on young people, and institutions of higher learning.

  • To evaluate the organizational systems (MEAL, Finance & Project Management) on their ability to support the achievement of project goals. 

  • To generate lessons learned from the implementation of the project’s activities and the outcomes achieved that will be useful for similar projects in the future.

  • To develop specific recommendations for SAYWHAT and other stakeholders for future project improvements.


The final evaluation report is to benefit the following stakeholders:

  • Project Management staff,

  • College authorities,

  • Project funders,

  • Policymakers,

  • Students and young people, &

  • Health service providers.


This Project’s Final Review and Evaluation will provide the following outputs for the various stakeholders as per their interests:

  • Final Evaluation Report

  • Project & Systems Ratings Summary

  • Feedback for all Stakeholders


Zimbabwe’s prevailing socio-economic challenges have significantly impacted young people’s access to quality health services. Low levels of health literacy, coupled with the limited availability of youth-friendly services and accessible information formats, have exposed this demographic to inaccurate and misleading health information (UNFPA, 2020). Health literacy is a critical determinant of empowerment, as it directly shapes young people’s ability to make informed decisions and choices (UNFPA, 2020). The emergence of hybrid learning formats (virtual and physical) has brought both challenges and opportunities in young people’s access to health information, particularly in the domain of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). According to UNICEF and WHO (2017), social security health insurance coverage among Zimbabwean youth is below 1%, leaving most unable to afford essential health services and commodities.

While the Government of Zimbabwe has made efforts to establish and certify youth-friendly health centers that provide affordable services, the initiative has only been implemented in 20 out of 59 districts, with less than 5 of these located within college campuses. Furthermore, the requirement to pay user fees at clinics and hospitals poses a significant barrier for young people living below the poverty line. Although young people constitute 60% of Zimbabwe’s population, their participation in policy spaces and their ability to influence key decisions that impact their health and well-being remain limited. According to Muchabaiwa and Mbonigaba (2019), the lack of youth participation in SRHR processes is a barrier to positive health outcomes. While Zimbabwe has several policies and strategies governing the delivery of SRHR, such as the ASRHR strategy and the Reproductive Health policy, young people often lack knowledge of the policies that protect their health rights, which hinders their ability to effectively contribute to the policy space (Matiza, 2013). Moreover, service providers themselves may also lack knowledge of the laws, policies, and regulations that govern their work in delivering health services to young people.

Compounding these challenges, youth-led organizations have not been actively involved in providing programs and initiatives that address the unique concerns of young people. The development landscape in Zimbabwe is predominantly occupied by non-youthful actors, with limited direct attachment to the grassroots concerns of the youth population.


The TORs are for an end-line evaluation for the Action for Choice 2 project, an extension of phase one which was implemented between the period 2018-2021. The implementation of A4C Phase 1 provided successful models and promising initiatives that justified the transition into A4C Phase 2. The project established several key resources:

  1. Resource Centers: These centers serve as mediums for young people to access SRH information and education, contributing to the provision of an enabling and supportive environment for their innovations.

  2. Call Center: The call center allows young people to access youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) information and receive referrals to utilize SRH services.

  3. Studio: The studio is another platform that facilitates the generation and sharing of SRH information with young people.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, SAYWHAT expanded its digital programming, which has shown strong potential to optimize the generation and sharing of SRH information with more young people. The A4C Phase 2 will build on this by further expanding digital engagement to complement physical interactions on young people’s SRH. This expansion will include strengthening online curriculum-based comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) and inspiring young artists to innovate and produce artistic digital products with SRH and gender-based violence (GBV) messages.

Under A4C Phase 1, advocacy efforts brought urgent issues to the policy agenda, such as the need to prioritize programming on sexual harassment, comprehensive sexuality education, and integrated SRH service delivery for young people. A4C Phase 2 targeted to scale up and expand SRH-related research and its use in advocacy with key institutions, including the Parliament of Zimbabwe, line ministries, and universities. Additionally, A4C Phase 1 focused on SRH service provision through hosting Health Fairs and facilitating referrals to SRH services. While the provision of physical health services using mobile options was interrupted by COVID-19, SAYWHAT adopted a new model that co-opted the use of social media and other online platforms. This strategy increased reach and proved to be a promising model that can be scaled up in A4C Phase 2.


7.1 Relevance

  • the alignment of the project with the needs, priorities, and objectives of the key stakeholders, including the target beneficiaries and SAYWHAT.

  • the coherence of the project with broader strategic and policy frameworks, such as national development plans and international commitments; and

  • the appropriateness of the project design and interventions to the specific local, cultural, social, economic, and environmental context in which the project is being implemented. 

7.2 Efficiency and Cost Effectiveness

Efficiency measures the outputs – qualitative and quantitative – with the inputs, costs, and implementing time. It is an economic term that signifies that the project used the least costly resources possible to achieve the desired results. Cost-effective factors include:

  • The project completed the planned activities and met or exceeded the expected outcomes in terms of achievement of the immediate objectives, per the schedule and as cost-effective as initially planned. Review how the various activities transformed the available resources into expected project outcomes, considering quantity, quality, and timeliness. The review should include the quality of day-to-day management (including risk management), costs and value for money, quality of monitoring, and other unplanned outputs arising from the project.

  • Was the project to overcome unforeseen difficulties and deliver project outputs on time and within budget?

7.3 Effectiveness

A measure of the extent to which the project attained its objectives. This includes an analysis of the attainment of outcomes and impacts, project objectives, and delivery and completion of project outputs and activities as shown by the project success indicators:

  • Review how the project’s outputs and results were achieved, and how the project’s goal was realized.

  • Review the intended beneficiary groups and identify how far planned benefits have been delivered and received by all key stakeholders, and how unplanned results may have affected the intended project benefits.

  • Review activities and outputs in relation to objectives defined in the project document, with emphasis on the defined indicators of targets and achievements.

  • Review the quality of the internal organizational and managerial structure of the project in relation to the fulfillment of project objectives, the human resources employed, and the overall management of the project’s resources.

7.4 Impact

The positive and negative changes produced by the Action for Choice 2 project, directly or indirectly, are intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activities on the local social, economic, environmental, and other development aspects:

  • Review the relationship between the project purpose and goal and the extent to which the benefits received by target beneficiaries affected a large number of people in the institutions of higher learning.

7.5 Sustainability

Sustainability measures the benefits of the Action for Choice 2 project that are likely to continue after the project has been completed and no more donor funding is available. Relevant factors to improve the sustainability of project outcomes include:

  • Development and implementation of a sustainability strategy.

  • Development of suitable organizational arrangements by public and/or private sector stakeholders.

  • Development of policy and regulatory frameworks that further the project objectives.

  • Development of appropriate institutional capacity (systems, structures, staff expertise, etc.)

  • Identification and involvement of champions (i.e., individuals in government and civil society who can promote the sustainability of project outcomes).

  • Achieving social sustainability by mainstreaming project activities into the economy or community activities.

  • Achieving stakeholders’ consensus regarding courses of action on project activities.

  • Assess the ownership of objectives and achievements by the beneficiaries/stakeholders, policy support, institutional and management capacity, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, appropriate technology, and the cross-cutting issues of gender equality, environmental impact, and good governance were appropriately accounted for.

7.6 Project Achievements

Evaluate the achievements of the project against the expected project outcomes taking into consideration the several factors that contributed to the successful implementation of the project. Refer to the immediate objectives, outputs, indicators, and activities specified in the project document.

7.7 Implementation Approach

Analyze the project’s approach vis-à-vis the development problems being addressed, adaptation to changing conditions, partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management. This may include:

  • Effective partnership arrangements were established for the implementation of the project with relevant stakeholders involved in the institutions of higher learning.

  • Lessons from other relevant projects incorporated into the project’s implementation.

  • Feedback from M&E activities used.

7.8 Country Ownership/ Drivenness

This shows the relevance of the project to the national development agenda, commitment, and regional and international agreements where applicable: Some elements that may be considered are:

  • The project derives from the development objectives of the Zimbabwean government.

  • Relevant country representatives (e.g., government officials, civil society, etc.) were actively involved in the project identification, planning, and/or implementation.

  • The Zimbabwean government is funding pillars targeted by the project.

  • The government has approved policies and/or regulatory frameworks in line with the project’s objectives.

7.9 Stakeholders Participation/Public Involvement

Stakeholders are the individuals, groups, institutions, or other bodies that have an interest or stake in the outcome of this project. The term also applies to those potentially adversely affected by the project. Examples of effective public involvement include effective information dissemination, as follows:

  • Implementation of appropriate outreach/public awareness campaigns.

  • Consultation and stakeholder participation.

  • Consulting and making use of the skills, experiences, and knowledge of CSOs, community and local groups, the private and public sectors, and academic institutions in the design, implementation, and evaluation of project activities.

  • Project institutional networks well placed within the overall national or community organizational structures, for example, by building on the local decision-making structures, incorporating local knowledge, and devolving project management responsibilities to the local organizations or communities as the project approaches closure.

  • Fulfillment of commitments to local stakeholders.

7.10 Replication and Scaling-Up Approach

Based on the lessons learned and experiences in the project, this is the process of duplicating the design and implementation on other institutions of higher learning to create a multiplier effect that will expand the coverage of SRH and GBV principles and practices. Examples of replication approaches are:

  • Expansion of the project

  • Capacity building and training of individuals, and institutions to expand the project’s achievements in the country or institutions of higher learning.

  • Knowledge transfer (i.e. popularization of lessons through project results documents, training seminars, information exchange, national or regional forums, etc.)

  • Use of project-trained individuals, and institutions, to replicate the project’s outcomes in other institutions of higher learning.


The evaluation process will produce the following outputs in addition to debriefings after the evaluation phase:

8.1 Action for Choice 2 End of project evaluation report

The product of the review is a Final Review Report in English with the following structure:

  • Executive Summary

  • Introduction

  • Methodology

  • Findings

  • Conclusions

  • Recommendations

  • Lessons learned

  • Annexes

The report should not exceed 30 pages plus an Executive Summary of no more than 3 pages with fully cross-referenced findings and recommendations. It shall be prepared using Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel if applicable, and according to the SAYWHAT format and descriptions in English. The report shall essentially follow the structure of the Terms of Reference and detailed materials shall be attached as an appendix. It shall be clear and concise, limiting itself to essential points. In addition, a short, separate PPT should be prepared, to facilitate the validation process and presentation to the other stakeholders. In addition, the report should analyze the main findings, and key lessons learned including best practices to inform future projects at the college level and country, or regional level. Where applicable, the annex should present any differences in findings between the consultant and other interested stakeholders. Upon completion of the first draft report, and after obtaining feedback from the stakeholders, the Consultant shall be responsible for incorporating the comments and suggestions in the final substantive and technical editing of the report as required ensuring that the final report is a well-written document.


The report should annex a rating of the project according to the following criteria:

  • Outcomes/Achievement of Objectives – the extent to which the project’s objectives were achieved.

  • Implementation Approach.

  • Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement.

  • Sustainability.

  • Monitoring & Evaluation.

The ratings will be Highly Satisfactory, Marginally Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, and N/A.


The project evaluation method is designed to assess the project achievements, generate lessons learned, and develop recommendations with the active participation of the partners, stakeholders, and beneficiaries to guarantee the continuation of interventions when donor support has ended. An objective external point of view from the Consultant will be valuable to the learning process. However, the results of the review will be

enhanced by the degree to which stakeholders entrusted with the process are motivated and can translate into action what they have learned through the review work.


11.1 Functions and Responsibilities

  • The Consultant will design the process to draw out the various viewpoints of the stakeholders on the expected review objectives. The designed process will guide all stakeholders in coming up with a shared assessment of the project achievements, lessons learned, and recommendations. Specifically, his responsibilities are:

  • To develop the detailed design of the review process and the work plan.

  • To revisit reports and documents to draw conclusive remarks and recommendations for the review process.

  • To ensure that concrete and specific outputs are developed in a participatory manner for each step of the evaluation process.

  • To provide an external view during the generation of lessons learned and the development of recommendations.

  • To present the preliminary review output to the project management team.

  • To prepare the draft report, incorporate comments, and finalize the report according to the prescribed format in the TORs.

  • To hire their staff, as deemed necessary, such as documenter (s) to support his consultancy contract. He is responsible for paying his staff, office, and administrative costs of the evaluation.

The Consultant will be selected based on the following criteria:

  • A post-graduate Degree in Public Health, Demographics, Gender Studies, or International Development.

  • Must have at least five years of continuous professional experience in evaluation designs and implementation.

  • Must have at least three years of professional experience in the design, monitoring, and evaluation of health projects

  • Must have sufficient knowledge of SRH and GBV issues as they affect students and young people in general.

  • Must be willing to work with college authorities, health service providers, government representatives, students, and the implementing team.

  • Must be able to demonstrate a high level of computer literacy.

  • Must have vast experience in research methodologies including data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and report writing.


Category Score
Comprehension of the TORs 20
Evaluation Design and Methodology 40
Financial Proposal 25
Qualifications and Experience 15
Total 100


Send technical and financial proposals to by 1700hrs on or before the 20th of June 2024.

[1] Manicaland State University of Applied Sciences, Great Zimbabwe University, Midlands State University, National University of Science and Technology, Lupane State University, Gwanda State University, Bindura University of Science Education, Chinhoyi University of Technology, Harare Institute of Technology, and the University of Zimbabwe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *