JOB DESCRIPTION: 
.
1. THE PROGRAMME - STRIVE for a better future: communities and civil society resilience in Armenia (STRIVE) (January 2022 - June 2025).
CONTEXT
STRIVE for a better future: communities and civil society resilience in Armenia (STRIVE) aims to improve the resilience, sustainability, accountability, and capacity for innovation of Armenian civil society organisations (CSOs). This enables them to play a pivotal role in raising awareness, deepening democracy, and serving constituencies in Armenia, especially vulnerable populations. Building on the success and momentum of past experience, within 42 months the Partners aimed to achieve the following outcomes: 1. CSOs increase their organisational capacity for internal democratic governance, accountability and transparency, sustainability, and constituency linkages through an innovation-driven approach, allowing them to better respond to the needs of their constituencies and vulnerable groups; 2. Structured mechanisms are expanded in support of mutually beneficial volunteering, community service, and on-the-job learning, enabling CSOs to tap into citizenry dedicated to delivering quality services to the most vulnerable, based on shared values; 3. Enhanced synergies and cooperation among CSOs and other relevant stakeholders help address the shrinkage of civil society space, disinformation, and systemic challenges faced by civil society in Armenia by enabling a strong coherent voice to contribute to and influence public decision-making.
The STRIVE Action was grounded in local communities—involving grassroots CSOs and civic groups throughout Armenia. It was balanced both geographically and thematically, focused on community development, emergency response, women’s rights, people with disabilities, green transitioning, and youth leadership/civic engagement. The STRIVE partners (NEF Belgium, Agate, YCCD, Blejan, and WINNET Goris) brings complementary geographic proximity and topical expertise that has enabled them to build strong ties with vulnerable groups, especially hard-to-reach groups, across Armenia.
This project is implemented with the financial assistance of the European Union. Project activities end on the 30th of June 2025, and NEF Belgium is now looking for an external consultant to conduct an evaluation of the action.
PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK
Project Impact: To improve the resilience, sustainability, accountability and capacity for innovation of Armenian civil society organisations enabling them to play a pivotal role in raising awareness, deepening democracy, and serving constituencies in Armenia, specifically vulnerable populations.
Outcome 1: Civil society organisations increased their organisational capacity for internal democratic governance, accountability and transparency, sustainability and constituency linkages through an innovation-driven approach, allowing them to better respond to the needs of their constituencies and of vulnerable groups.
Output 1.1. CSOs and grassroots social and environmental civic groups have increased their key competences and organisational capacity by participating or leading innovation-focused capacity development journeys and applying them to their operations and grassroots civic initiatives.
Output 1.2. Armenian CSOs address urgent and basic needs of severely vulnerable populations using an emergency fund and applying a Do-No-Harm approach.
Outcome 2. Expanded structured mechanisms in support of mutually beneficial volunteering, community services and on-the-job learning enable civil society organisations to tap into dedicated value-driven citizens for delivering quality services to the most vulnerable.
Output 2.1. CSOs have developed a coherent strategy for engaging volunteers, featuring detailed volunteering and community services descriptions for engaging volunteers.
Output 2.2. Value-driven citizens, such as youth and active citizens, become more engaged in civil society volunteering, due to stronger visibility of local CSOs and increased leadership skills.
Output 2.3. An academic course on the role of civil society is endorsed by Armenian universities, ensuring that a new generation of young professionals have an understanding of civil society.
Outcome 3. Enhanced synergies and cooperation among CSOs and other relevant stakeholders contribute to addressing shrinking space for civil society, disinformation and systemic challenges faced by civil society, by enabling a strong coherent voice to contribute to and influence public decision-making.
Output 3.1. Multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral and cross-region collaborative networks and partnerships among civil society and other key stakeholders are strengthened, at all levels.
Output 3.2. CSOs & media organisations lead evidence-based research and reporting and educational initiatives to fight malign content, increasing media literacy and critical-thinking competences.
TARGET GROUPS AND BENEFICIARIES
Project Components and number of sub-grants and beneficiaries:
1. Emergency Response: # of microgrants: 34; # of direct beneficiaries: 2375
2. Organizational Model Innovation: # of microgrants (and beneficiaries): 43 (+4 implementing partners)
3. Non-Formal Groups: # of microgrants: 15; # of beneficiaries: 1683
4. Multi-stakeholder Joint Actions: 6
5. Volunteering (Still Ongoing)
6. Youth Leadership (Still Ongoing)
7. Academic course (Still Ongoing)
8. Media (Still Ongoing)
2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The final evaluation will follow the evaluation criteria of the OECD/DAC and the EC. In addition to relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability, coherence and connectedness the final evaluation will also pay special attention to: (1) learning; (2) proof of concept; (3) replication and multiplication of results; and (4) coherence with local, national and EC programmes and policies and value added. The final results will be actively shared and disseminated through an end-of-project workshop and a final evaluation summary report.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Applicants should propose a methodology they believe would best address the needs of this evaluation. However, we suggest the format is based on the DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance. The DAC methodology focuses on 7 main themes: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact, coherence and connectedness.
Relevance, defined as “the extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor”, and includes the following queries:
- To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?
- Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives?
- Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects?
- To what extent is the project coherent with EU and Armenia policies and programmes?
Effectiveness, defined as “the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives”, including:
- To what extent were the objectives achieved/are likely to be achieved?
- What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Efficiency, defined as an economic term that signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results, answering:
- Were activities cost-efficient (value-for-money)?
- Were objectives achieved on time?
- Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
Impact, defined as “the positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended”, including:
- What has happened as a result of the programme or project?
- What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?
- How many people have been affected?
Sustainability, defined as the extent to which the “benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn”, including:
- To what extent are the benefits of a project likely to continue after donor funding ceases?
- What were the major factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the programme or project?
Coherence, define how well does the project align with other interventions in the sector or region
- How well does the project align with national policies, sectoral strategies, or donor priorities?
- Does the project complement or duplicate efforts of other organizations in the same field?
- Are there any conflicts or synergies between this project and other interventions?
- How well does the project consider cross-cutting issues (e.g., gender equality, human rights, environmental sustainability)?
- To what extent does the project contribute to the priorities set by the European Commission (EC) for the region or sector?
- What unique value does the project bring compared to existing programs? How does the project enhance coordination and collaboration among key stakeholders?
Connectedness (for humanitarian action), define if the project ensure long-term and interconnected solutions.
- Does the project contribute to long-term solutions beyond immediate relief?
- How well does the project link emergency response with development and resilience-building efforts?
- Are there mechanisms in place to transition from humanitarian aid to self-sufficiency?
- Has the project considered local capacities and involved local actors in a way that ensures sustainability?
The consultant will supplement the key themes outlined above with an analysis of the following:
Learning: What aspects of the project worked well? Which aspects of the project could be improved upon? Why and how?
Proof of concept: Did foundational assumptions underpinning programme design hold true? If yes, did they follow the anticipated logical progression as captured in the theory of change? If not, why was this?
Replication and multiplication of project outcomes: Does project design lend itself to scale-up? How can the team capitalise upon successes achieved moving forward? Are there significant differences in regional v. urban outcomes and impact that should be taken into account?
Also the following specific criteria should be considered.
Assessment of Progress Made Towards Key Outcomes: To what degree were the project’s goals and outcomes achieved as per the original design and expected results? What specific milestones were reached, and how does this compare to the initial targets? What factors influenced the progress (positive or negative), and how did they affect the achievement of the project’s goals?
3. METHODOLOGY
The project evaluation will be participatory in nature and utilise qualitative and quantitative methods (i.e., surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.) to engage “direct” beneficiaries, partners and CSO staff, CSO beneficiaries, and community representatives.
The project team will place quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of standard reporting processes at the disposal of the evaluator, in addition to their own fieldwork:
- Approved proposal and M&E plan
- Data collected as part of the project activities and reporting (including but not limited to any baseline and endline surveys, institutional capacity assessments, etc.)
- Interim and annual reports
- List of beneficiaries organized by activity
- List of key staff tasked with project implementation
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EVALUATOR AND NEF BELGIUM TEAM
The external consultant shall:
1. Lead implementation of the evaluative methodology, finalised in coordination with the NEF team;
2. Lead development of draft and final reports;
3. Manage all logistics related to scheduling, transport, and accommodation;
4. Present primary finding to NEF Belgium team prior to finalisation of report.
RESPONSIBILITIES: 
.
Position and Roles and responsibilities
1. Director of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning:
- Provide technical support to refine evaluative methodology;
- Comment upon findings and recommendations prior to the finalization of the report.
2. Monitoring & Evaluation Officer:
- Provide all supporting documentation to the consultant prior to the launch of fieldwork. Provide consultant with contact information for individuals selected for the sample.
- Coordinate timing of review with NEF Belgium staff.
- Comment upon findings and recommendations prior to the finalization of the report.
3. Country Director:
- Comment upon findings and recommendations prior to the finalization of the report.
- Validate final evaluation products.
4. Field Officer for Coordination:
- Comment upon findings and recommendations prior to the finalization of the report.
- Coordinate timing of review with NEF Belgium staff.
DELIVERABLES
The external consultant will prepare a 40-50-page report in English, summarizing their findings, along with a PowerPoint presentation that highlights the key points of the report. This report shall first be submitted in draft form for consideration by NEF Belgium. A final version of the report should be provided, updated to reflect feedback given.
The report should contain the following sections:
- Executive summary, including a concise background on the project, the purpose of the evaluation and its main findings – maximum 4 pages;
- Brief description of the project and activities undertaken by the project – maximum 5 pages;
- Description of the approach and data collection methods employed by the consultant, including a summary of main evaluation questions and how the sample of participants was selected – maximum 4 pages;
- Principle findings and analysis by the project’s objectives and results, and by evaluation questions and DAC criteria – this should be the bulk of the report; minimum 20-25 pages
- Recommendations to improve or capitalise upon the project model – minimum 2 pages.
Note, any reports with significant duplication of the proposal and/or evaluation TOR content as opposed to original analysis will be rejected.
The following documents shall be submitted in annex to the report and shall not count toward the page count outlined above.
1. Draft report submitted prior to comments being provided;
2. Presentation and any supporting documentation shared at the time of project restitution;
3. Summary of fieldwork, implementation schedule, and list of individuals interviewed by role and location.
4. Copy of all tools used in implementation of evaluation.
TIMELINE
The final evaluation period will be conducted from May 26, 2025 (starting date) to August 15, 2025 (final report), with all field work completed by July 1, 2025 and a draft report submitted by August 1, 2025.
- Pre-framing meetings to discuss expectations and deliverables for the evaluation process by June 1 (External consultant, M&E Officer, Country Director, Programme Officer)
- Development of the guiding evaluation methodological document by June 10 (External consultant, M&E Officer, Country Director, Programme Officer)
- General framing of the final evaluation; discussion of the Terms of Reference, methodology by June 16 (External consultant, M&E Officer, Country Director, Programme Officer)
- Field work by July 1, 2025 (External consultant with logistical support from NEF Belgium)
- Draft report in English by August 1, 2025 (External consultant)
- Restitution with project team (External consultant, M&E Officer, Country Director)
- Final report in English by August 15, 2025 (External consultant)
BUDGET
The payment terms will be agreed with the consultant prior to contracting. The consultant is expected to cover the cost of insurance, travel, communication, translation and any expenses associated with the consultancy within the available budget.
REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS: 
.
RESEARCH PROFILE AND SELECTION OF EXTERNAL CONSULTANT
The external consultant shall have the following qualifications:
- Expertise in external evaluations, analysis of change and learning processes;
- Expertise in evaluating projects focused on CSO capacity building, humanitarian and development initiatives, and civil society strengthening;
- A Master’s degree or post-graduate studies in related technical field such as social sciences, public policy, international development, with a focus on monitoring and evaluation, data collection/research and analysis of data would be a strong asset;
- Minimum ten (10) years of experience in international development monitoring and evaluation;
- Fluency in Armenian and English is required; written and spoken professional working capacity.
SCORING CRITERIA FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION
Criterion: Expertise in evaluating projects focused on CSO capacity building, humanitarian and development initiatives, and civil society strengthening.
Details: In-depth expertise in evaluating projects to improve CSO sustainability is a strong preference. This includes organisational capacity building activities, business model innovation and diversification of financial resources, and particularly social entrepreneurship.
Weight: 25%
Criterion: Experience of designing research and evaluations
Details: A record of designing and delivering rigorous research and evaluations.
Sound knowledge and understanding of the entire project cycle and the ability to evaluate the quality of each project stage.
Competencies in data collection and analysis related to socio-economic variables, quantitative and qualitative research.
Weight: 25%
Criterion: Proposed methodology
Details: The consultant will propose the broad methodology and will work in consultation with NEF Belgium and partners to develop the details of the approach.
The consultant must display the ability to design/develop methods adapted to the local context.
Weight: 30%
Criterion: Education and experience
Details: Qualifications and experience relevant to the sector
Weight: 10%
Criterion: Financial proposal
Details: The most cost-effective proposal that meets the expectations of the work will be selected.
Weight: 10%
APPLICATION PROCEDURES: 
All proposals must be submitted no later than 18:00 GMT on May 8, 2025 via NEF’s website at
https://neareast.bamboohr.com/careers/453?source=aWQ9MTc%3D and/or ****@*************.**.
Prospective consultants are expected to submit technical and financial proposals in English, and must include the following:
1. Profile of consultant/firm, clear demonstration of previous experience in conducting external evaluations;
2. Applicant’s understanding of the Terms of Reference;
3. Approach and methodology;
4. Work plan
5. Proposed budget in EUR, inclusive of VAT, which includes sufficient detail and breakdown of applicable costs.
Appendices to the proposal must include:
6. CVs of the evaluation team; and
7. Three references from similar projects undertaken by the consultant(s), including e-mail contacts and phone numbers.
Proposals that do not include all 7 points above will not be entertained.
All documents produced for this evaluation will remain the property of NEF and may not be published without its consent.
Selected evaluators must ensure that their actions comply with the European Commission's visibility requirements. These requirements can be found in the Communication and Visibility Manual for EU-funded External Actions.
Questions and clarifications regarding the Terms of Reference should be sent to:
****@*************.**.
Please clearly mention in your application letter that you learned of this announcement through Career Center and mention the URL of its website - www.careercenter.am. Thanks.
REMUNERATION/ SALARY: 
.
BUDGET
The payment terms will be agreed with the consultant prior to contracting. The consultant is expected to cover the cost of insurance, travel, communication, translation and any expenses associated with the consultancy within the available budget.