Final Evaluation of the “Burundi Integrated Health and Protection” project / Évaluation finale du projet "Santé et Protection intégrées du Burundi" at Finnish Red Cross

Terms of Reference: Final Evaluation of the “Burundi Integrated Health and Protection 2022-2025” project

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose: Assess the project against the OECD-DAC criteria with a particular focus on generating actionable recommendations for future programming

1.2 Audience: Finnish Red Cross (FRC),Burundi Red Cross (CRB), Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, RCRC Movement

1.3 Commissioner: This external evaluation is commissioned by the Finnish Red Cross in compliance with the FRC learning and evaluation framework.

1.4 Duration of evaluation: The total working time in days is to be offered by the consultants. A minimum of 5 days should be allocated to field work.

1.5 Time frame: The evaluation is expected to be conducted between February – March 2026 (preparation, desk review, field work, analysis and reporting), with the final report ready in April 2026.

1.6 Locations: Home/desk-basedwork with fieldwork in Burundi (Muramvya and Kiganda communes).

2.Background

In Burundi, the FRC is supporting community-based health in a bilateral cooperation with the CRB. This programme is implemented between 2022-2025 by the CRB in the Muramvya Province in the central Burundi, in the communes of Muramvya and Kiganda.

The programme is based on CRB’s behavioural change approach called “the model household approach" (MHA). The MHA is based on eleven objectives aimed at promoting good health, education, hygiene and sanitation, nutrition, environmental protection, social cohesion and livelihoods. The approach focuses on promoting healthy communities through the assistance of CRB volunteers, whose knowledge and skills is strengthened throughout the project. The main objective of the programme is to improve the health of the communities in terms of nutrition, sexual and reproductive health, prevention of epidemics and endemic diseases and to prevent sexual and gender-based violence through support and advice provided by trained volunteers. The programme also contains components on disaster risk reduction, at both community and local levels, strengthening local capacities in disaster preparedness and climate change adaptation. Sustainable support is provided to households living in conditions of extreme vulnerability, as well as support to community structures to improve community livelihoods. These activities are implemented in line with the CRB Model Household approach, to ensure sustainability and behaviour change within households. Finally, the programme aims to strengthen the capacities of the CRB and support its decentralized structures to manage and sustain its resources. The programme also places special focus on disability inclusion and cooperates with a local disability organization.

Overall, the programme outlines three objectives:

1. The health and well-being of women, children, older people, victims of SGBV, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are improved by strengthening the provision of quality community-based services in sexual and reproductive health (SRH), the prevention of endemic and epidemic diseases and by supporting the prevention of gender-based violence
2. Community capacities are strengthened in disaster preparedness, risk identification, and implementation of climate change adaptation measures, while also improving the capacity of the Branch and volunteers to respond effectively in the event of disasters
3. The Muramvya branch of the CRB and its communal and hillside structures have technical and operational capacities with professionalised, motivated, and better supervised volunteers to provide services sustainably to the communities

At the beginning of the programme a baseline assessment was conducted, and the endline assessment in December 2025. A light internal review of the programme was conducted in October 2025.

3. Evaluation Objectives

This evaluation aims to assess the project against the OECD DAC criteria with a particular focus on generating actionable recommendations for future programming. The general objective of this evaluation is to:

• Assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project to date, including key achievements and challenges
• Assess the reasons for achievement/non-achievement of project results

The specific objectives of the evaluation are:

1. Assess programme relevance and inclusiveness: how well did the programme design align with community needs and priorities, including strategies for reaching the most vulnerable groups
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of the integrated health approaches, including reviewing the extent to which community-based health and first aid (CBHFA) and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) components were implemented and contributed to health outcomes
3. Analyze capacity-building efforts: assess the adequate and effectiveness of training, tools, and support provided to volunteers and community health workers in fulfilling their roles in health promotion, referrals and behavior change. This should specifically examine whether planned CBHFA and SRH training curricula were delivered, or what was used in their place and whether that knowledge is retained.
4. Review behavior change strategies and community engagement, including how the interventions were designed and implemented and their effectiveness in influencing priority health behaviors.
5. Analyze nutrition programming and sustainability, including the effectiveness of the nutrition interventions, including its linkages to maternal and child health, and assess the sustainability of it
6. Assess community assessment processes and ownership, evaluate the extent to which communities participated in identifying their own health priorities, risks, solutions and assess the degree of community ownership over programme design and implementation.
7. Evaluate cross-cutting issues, including how well protection, gender and inclusion (PGI), disability inclusion and menstrual hygiene management were integrated across interventions.
8. Review partnership and capacity development, e.g. how the partnership approach contributed to strengthening CRB’s institutional and operational capacity for sustainable service delivery.

The scope of the evaluation is:

• Time period: 2022 – 2025 (2022 focus on the project’s preparation phase, while the project officially launched in 2023)
• Geographic scope:All districts covered by the project. The evaluator can propose a sample to be focused on for the evaluation.

4. Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions

The evaluation will examine the following evaluation criteria and key questions:

1. Relevance: Did the intervention implement actions that are relevant to the community?
   1. To what extent did communities participate in identifying and prioritising their own health needs and risks? Was the initial assessment conducted in a participatory manner?
   2. How well did the programme respond to the health and protection needs identified in the initial VCA and evolving community priorities? What mechanisms were in place to adapt the programme, and how was this done?
   3. To what extent did the programme design ensure inclusivity, particularly for landless households, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups?
2. Coherence: What is the synergy of the intervention with the overall planning of CRB?
   1. How well did the intervention complement other actions by CRB in the country, and other actors’ efforts in the same region?
   2. Did the FRC support bring added value to the National Society among other partners providing support?
3. Effectiveness: Is the intervention achieving its objectives?
   1. To what extent were the intended outputs and outcomes of the project achieved? Were there other outcomes achieved?
   2. How did changes in activity implementation affect the achievement of the intended outcomes? Were decision making and technical oversight processes adequate?
   3. How effectively were the CBHFA and SRHR components integrated into programme delivery? Were planned CBHFA and SRHR training curricula delivered to volunteers (review curricula)? What were the key challenges in this approach?
   4. Were volunteers and community health workers adequately trained and equipped to deliver health promotion and referrals? Can volunteers demonstrate knowledge of key health topics covered in training curricula?
   5. How effective were the behavior change strategies in influencing priority health behaviors (e.g. family planning, maternal health)
   6. How consistently were Model Household certification standards applied? Were households that did not meet all the criteria certified?
4. Efficiency: How well are resources being used?
   1. How well have the resources (financial, material, HR, time) been used to produce achievements and results?
   2. What were the delays, bottlenecks or challenges that affected implementation?
   3. Were monitoring and reporting systems effective in identifying gaps and informing decisions?
5. Impact: What difference does the intervention make?
   1. What tangible changes occurred in community health, nutrition and protection as a result of the programme?
   2. What were the factors that enabled or hindered the intended project impact?
   3. Did the programme contribute to broader community empowerment or resilience beyond Red Cross activities? Specifically, has the programme built community capacity to identify and assess their own health risks, develop locally-owned solutions, and sustain behaviour change independently?
6. Sustainability: Will the benefits last?
   1. Which programme components are likely to continue after project closure?
   2. What mechanisms or partnerships exist to sustain benefits?
   3. How sustainable are nutrition interventions and maternal health linkages?
   4. For vulnerable households excluded from the MHA (e.g. landless households), what mechanisms exist to address their needs sustainably?
7. Cross-Cutting Issues
   1. How well were PGI principles, disability inclusion and menstrual hygiene management integrated into health and WASH interventions? Were technical resources adequate?
   2. Did the programme address barriers to participation for women, youth, and persons with disabilities
8. Partnership and capacity building
   1. How did the partnership approach strengthen CRB’s technical and operational capacity?
   2. How effective was the partnership approach in ensuring technical continuity and capacity strengthening
   3. What lessons can be drawn for future capacity development strategies?

5. Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation will be carried out by an external evaluation team/consultant in a transparent manner, making sure that all relevant stakeholders participate as appropriate.

The primary language of this evaluation will be conducted in French, with some deliverables expected in English. Deliverables expected in English are the proposal and a comprehensive executive summary of the report. Contracting and related communication will take place in English. All other deliverables, communications, and materials to review will be in French. The primary language spoken at the community level is Kirundi. CRB/FRC is able to support in arranging a translator/interpreter, if needed.

The detailed evaluation methodology and work plan are left to the evaluators to propose but the evaluation should consider the views of programme beneficiaries and volunteers and different levels of CRB structures and other relevant stakeholders in the country. It is expected that multiple participatory methods are used, both quantitative and qualitative. Validation of results must be done through multiple sources and the final evaluation methodology used explained in the inception report and in the final evaluation report.

The key documents to be analysed shall be made available by the FRC, and include, amongst others: Original programme plan, baseline and endline assessments, quarterly reports, annual reports and the internal health review report.

6. Proposed Timeline

The evaluation is expected to take place between January – April 2026 with the field trip taking place during February-March 2026. The final report must be submitted to the Finnish Red Cross by no later than 24th of April 2026.

In the consultants’ offer, a detailed timeline is to be presented including a breakdown of working days into following three evaluation phases: a) Inception phase (incl. preparatory discussions between the consultant and stakeholders, scoping meeting and desk review); b) Field work phase (incl. travel days and briefing/debriefing workshop); c) Final reporting phase (incl. time for review and revision of the report, and final presentation of findings).

7. Deliverables

The evaluation team/consultant will provide:

1. Proposal must be submitted in English and French.
2. An inception report in French following the desk work and prior to the mission to demonstrate a clear understanding and realistic plan of work for the evaluation. The inception report outlines how s/he will lead the evaluation, presents the work plan and the planned methodology.
3. Briefing with CRB management and project stakeholders in Bujumbura to discuss the field data collection methods and selection of sample locations, prior to commencement of fieldwork.
4. A debriefing workshop in country to the CRB management and key project stakeholders at the end of the mission to discuss the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations.
5. A draft final evaluation report in French two weeks after return from the field visit. The draft will be shared with CRB and other relevant stakeholders for comments. The comments from the FRC and the relevant stakeholders are to be forwarded to the Consultant within two weeks after receiving the draft. A comprehensive executive summary in English must be included in the draft report.
6. A final (corrected) evaluation report in French is to be submitted to the FRC within two weeks of receiving the comments. The report will have a maximum length of 30 pages, including a comprehensive Executive Summary in English. The report will include recommendations to the CRB, the Finnish Red Cross and possibly to other stakeholders. Approval for the report from the FRC and the CRB.
7. A presentation of the evaluation report by the Consultant to CRB and FRC in French.

8. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards.

The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards of the IFRC.

The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:

• Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
• Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
• Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.

9. Evaluation Team and Qualifications

The evaluator/evaluation team shall have:

• University degree/s at the post-graduate level in relevant field of study (e.g. health, water and sanitation, disaster management, social development, social sciences, management).
• Previous experience with technical knowledge in community-based health activities and community-based development activities in other relevant fields (WASH, DP/DRR).
• Working experience in development co-operation. Such experience from Burundi is an asset.
• Proven experience in evaluating development co-operation programmes or projects, incl. analyzing development impacts. Preferably at least 2-3 reference evaluations, each reference being at least 20 days long.
• Solid knowledge and experience in utilizing participatory and community-based methodologies and approaches
• Knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement preferred.
• Good knowledge of written and spoken English and French is a must. Knowledge of Kirundi is a strong asset.

10. Selection Criteria

The evaluation team will be selected on the received offers. Contracts are awarded on the basis of the best price-quality ratio, taking into account the price, qualifications and evaluation methodology, according to weighed points as follows:

• Price: 30 points
• Technical expertise and qualifications: 30 points
• Evaluation expertise, incl. quality of technical proposal and methodology: 30 points
• Knowledge of Red Cross/Crescent Movement: 10 points

 Application procedure

The offer shall consist of two parts: the evaluation offer and the price offer.

A maximum of 4-page evaluation offer, separately in English and French, shall include the following:

• A technical proposal of expressing an understanding and interpretation of the ToR, the proposed evaluation methodology, activities and their schedule
• Evaluation work plan including a breakdown of evaluation days into evaluation phases (see above item 6.)
• Proposed team and responsibilities among the team members. The offer must clearly outline whether the consultant/a team member can speak Kirundi, or support is needed from CRB/FRC in securing a translator/interpreter.
• Annexed to the evaluation offer (either in English or French): CVs of each proposed team member, possible evaluation references and at least one example of an evaluation report the team leader/evaluator was part of

The price offer shall include the allocation of fees per expert (fee/expert/day) per each evaluation phase as well as breakdown of any additional costs, considered as fixed costs. The FRC/CRB will cover the cost during the field trip (visa fees, flights, accommodation) as per FRC travel regulations, but estimates of these are to be included in the price offer. The consultants are expected to assume full responsibility for adequate travel insurance coverage and costs and for paying any social chargers due to a consultancy fee.

All prices must be stated in euros (€) and exclusive of value-added tax (VAT 0%) but shall include all other taxes and levies. If no price is indicated, the tender will be excluded from the competitive bidding. The evaluation of the price tender is based on the lump sum, covering fees and all other costs. This total amount (lump sum) of the consultancy services will be subject to price evaluation. All the costs will be paid against invoices.

During the tendering procedure, the tenderers may request clarification or additional information by emailing their questions to procurement@redcross.fi. Subject of the e-mail must have the reference “Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Questions”. Please submit your written questions by no later than 21.01.2026. The queries will be answered by e-mail to all tenderers by end of day 23.01.2026.

The applicants are requested to submit the evaluation and price offer to procurement@redcross.fi by 30.01.2026 at 4.00 pm (Eastern European Time, UTC +2) latest. The message shall be marked with the reference "Evaluation consultancy/Burundi/Offer". Offers submitted after the deadline will not be considered.

The FRC reserves the right to exclude tenderers with serious breaches of Red Cross Code of Conduct in previous assignments.

The offer can be rejected if the service provider is encumbered by a mandatory or discretionary exclusion criterion referred to in national or EU legislation on public procurement or a sanction imposed by the European Union or the United Nations or other above-mentioned restrictions, such as Russian nationality or establishment in Russia or if the implementation of the agreement involve bribery or corresponding unlawful activity.

The tenderer is subject for screening against any potential records on financial sanctions and terrorist listings software by the FRC. In case of illegal or corrupt practices have related to the award of the execution of the Tendering actions or Contract, the Finnish Red Cross has the right to cancel/terminate any tendering actions or Contract by giving notice of the termination in writing to the supplier.