PROJECT EVALUATION -Supporting the National Strategy for the De-institutionalization of Persons with Disabilities in Jordan 1st July 22 – 30th of Nov At Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion

General information

. About Humanity & Inclusion

HI is an independent and impartial aid and development organization with no religious or political affiliations operating in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict, and disaster. We work alongside people with disabilities and vulnerable people to help meet their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. Since the organization was first founded in 1982, we have set up development programs in more than 50 countries and responded to many emergencies. Today we have a budget of around 185 million euros, with 3,500 employees worldwide. HI is engaged in an employment policy in favour of persons with disabilities. For further information about the organization, please visit www.hi.org

1.2 About Humanity & Inclusion in the country

HI has been operating in Jordan since 2003, implementing projects focused on access to comprehensive services for physical and functional rehabilitation, early detection and early intervention of children with developmental delays, increasing inclusion of vulnerable people in other services, inclusive education, deinstitutionalization for living independently, and inclusive employment to promote equal opportunities.

Under the European Union grant, HI Jordan is implementing a pilot project “Supporting the National Strategy for the De-institutionalization (De-I) of Persons with Disabilities in Jordan” from July 2022 to November 2025. The project aims to support the implementation of the “National Strategy for the De-institutionalization of Persons with Disability” that was launched in November 2019 by the Ministry of Social Development (MoSD) and the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (HCD). The De-I strategy vision is that “no children or adults with disabilities live in large-scale residential institutions and that they are all enabled to live with families or independently and to participate fully in the life of the community”.

The project will pilot a comprehensive model of De-I and prevention of institutions, based on the rights-based approach to disability and inclusion, for the direct benefit of 500 children and adults with disabilities and their families (40 women from institutions and 450 persons to be prevented from institutions).

The De-I project will support 100 persons with intellectual disabilities to transition from the institution towards family and community-based care or to prevent/avoid institutions. The project is supporting one of the five governmental institutions located in Tafelah governorate (South of Jordan), named “Tafelah Centre for Care and Rehabilitation”. The centre is run and managed by MoSD, and provides institutional services for 107 adult Jordanians women with intellectual disabilities aged 18 – 60, the services are provided through 114 staff with different backgrounds including; Managers, Nurses, Caregivers (especial education background), Caregiver Assistance, Social Workers, Nutritionists, Psychosocial Workers in addition to logistics and Finance staff. 40 women out of the 107 will be supported to be hosted by their original families or foster families.

The project will support prevention to institutions by providing support to 60 persons with intellectual disabilities and their families who are seeking institutional services registered on the MoSD waiting list. In addition, 350 children with disabilities will be supported through Early Intervention (EI)/Childhood Development (ECD) services provided in the inclusive daily care centre (in Zarqa governorate), and another 50 adults with disabilities will be supported through vocational training. Also, the project will empower persons with disabilities and their families to be self-advocates and make group support with support from the HI partner (Inclusion International (II)).

As the project is considered a pilot, there is a deliberate intention of ensuring that the project’s experiences and practices are documented to facilitate scale-up and replication opportunities with the rest of the residential beneficiaries in Tafelah Centre for Care and Rehabilitation or/and in other residential institution in Jordan or other countries.

Context of the evaluation

2.1 Presentation of the project to be evaluated

Implementation dates:

1st of July 2022 – 30th of November 2025 (41 months)

Location/Areas of intervention:

Cross Jordan: Tafelah, Zarqa, Irbid, Amman,

Operating Partners:

Consortium members; Inclusion International (II)

Target Groups:

500 children and adults with disabilities

Project Budget:

2.2M Euro

Project Logical Framework:

Overall Objective (Impact)

To contribute to the Jordanian National De-Institutionalisation Strategy’s vision that no children or adults with disabilities live in large-scale residential institutions and that they are all enabled to live with families or independently and to participate fully in the life of the community.

Specific Objectives

Specific Objective 1 (SO1): To pilot a comprehensive model of De-institutionalisation and prevention of institutionalisation, based on the rights-based approach to disability and inclusion, for the direct benefit of 300 children and adults with disabilities and their families.

Specific Objective 2 (SO2): To support MOSD in the implementation of the National De-institutionalisation Strategy in line with international commitments and to share good practices and lessons learnt from the pilot de-institutionalisation model at regional and international events

Main output and their related activities implemented and indicators:

Outputs of the Specific Objective 1:

Output 1: Identified MOSD centres are supported to develop their full capacity to provide inclusive daily care services to children and adults with disabilities.

Activity 1.1: Mapping of existing centres and identification of two centres in collaboration with MOSD that will receive support from HI to transition towards Inclusive Day-Care Services Centre.

Activity 1.2: Review and adapt MOSD’s centres’ (including Early Intervention Centers) tools and train the staff how to use these tools and related protocols.

Activity 1.3: Improve the accessibility of the centres’ premises and equipment (of the 1 targeted residential institutions).

Activity 1.4: Capacity building of the centre staff to equip them to work with a human rights and person-driven approach.

Activity 1.5: Support persons with disabilities who will transition from the institutions through a person-cantered and person-driven approaches and empower them to create self-advocacy groups.

Output 1 Indicators:

OVI1: 20 of residential centres’ staff trained/coached on person-cantered action plans.

OVI2: 22% of residential centres’ beneficiaries moved out from residential to their families.

OVI3: 20 of the Early Intervention centre staff trained on the Early Intervention program and the Early Intervention protocol.

Output 2: Persons with disabilities and their families are empowered to support inclusion at home and in their communities.

Activity 2.1: Support to families to be well prepared to host or re-host children and adults with disabilities.

Activity 2.2: Support to children and adults with disabilities to define personalized action plans for inclusion in their families and communities.

Activity 2.3: Create a network of families and of persons with disabilities for peer-support which will be a space for them to exchange good practices that support inclusion and discuss challenges.

Output 2 Indicators:

OVI1: 500 children and adults with disabilities receive in-home and community-based support.

OVI2: 70 families supported with financial assistance

OVI3: 15 persons with disabilities trained on self-advocacy

OVI4: 5 peer support networks of families with children and adults with disabilities established in target areas.

OVI5: 200 families trained and coached to support their children and adults with disabilities.

Output 3: Alternative Community Approaches are identified and piloted to support de-institutionalisation and inclusion.

Activity 3.1 Training of CBOs/CSOs/OPDs on de-institutionalisation and inclusion of persons with disabilities in the community.

Activity 3.2: Capacity building to CBOs/OPDs and CSOs to enhance their ability developing inclusive community and home-based support services for people with intellectual disabilities, through hands-on coaching exposure to inclusive models, and collaboration with self-advocate.

Activity 3.3: Support CBOs/CSOs/OPDs and families to raise awareness on the rights of persons with disabilities and to improve inclusiveness of their services and their advocacy work.

Activity 3.4: Develop partnerships with Vocational Training Centers (VTCs) and potential employers to provide persons with disabilities with opportunities/spaces to develop skills in relation to different professional vocations.

Output 3 Indicators:

OVI1: 1 of a residential centre equipped to provide inclusive daily care services.

OVI2: 60 of awareness sessions conducted/delivered by CBOs and OPDs.

OVI3: 50 persons with disabilities enrolled in vocational training centres.

Outputs of the Specific Objective 2:

Output 1: Good practices from the pilot intervention in target areas inform the implementation of de-institutionalisation in Jordan and in the region.

Activity 1.1: Facilitate regular meetings of the Technical Steering Committee to identify and document good practices and lessons learned from the implementation of the pilot intervention in target areas.

Activity 1.2: Develop a toolkit based on local experiences and international best practices to promote community-based services for persons with intellectual disabilities.

Activity 1.3: Share good practices and lessons learnt from the project at regional and international events.

Output 1 Indicators:

OVI1: 1 toolkit on inclusive community model designed, produced and disseminated.

OVI2: 400 of national and regional stakeholders informed (through regional events) on de-institutionalisation good practices

OVI3: 1500 people from the community receiving information about de-institutionalisation and inclusion.

Output 2: MOSD and HCD are supported to adopt further policies and action plans related to the implementation of the de-institutionalisation strategy in line with international commitments related to the rights of persons with disabilities.

Activity 2.1: Workshops with MOSD, other relevant ministries, and HCD to design multi-sectoral plans related to the de-institutionalisation process.

Activity 2.2: Ongoing advisory to MOSD and HCD in developing new policies and action plans or reforming existing ones to ensure compliance with UNCRPD.

Activity 2.3 Support HCD in preparing the art. 19 section for the Shadow Report to the UNCRPD Committee in collaboration with OPDs and other CSOs.

Output 2 Indicators:

OVI1: 1 of the drafted shadow report, including specific information on Article 19 of the CRPP developed/published.

OVI2: 20 of relevant ministries staff and HCD representatives who received information related to De-institutionalisation according to the international legal framework

2.2 Justification of the evaluation

It is the final evaluation of a 41-month project. It will be a milestone to examine the project’s progress and accomplishment in reference to the implemented, measured indicators of the project, the impact of the intervention, and the achieved objectives and outcomes of the project.

The Evaluation shall be conducted by an external evaluation team under the supervision of the Evaluation Steering Committee. The Evaluation shall assess the quality criteria – defined by HI through the Project Quality Framework – Changes, Relevance, Effectiveness, Accountability to the population, and Partnership of the project. It serves to provide HI and partners with a comprehensive review of project performance, process, and results, as HI and partners both aim at building institutional knowledge and promoting strategic and effective programming. The evaluation results should identify and describe the lessons learned, assess progress, measure changes against planned indicators, and summarize experience gained both on a technical and managerial level.

Objectives of the evaluation
Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the relevance of the intervention in addressing the needs of persons with disabilities and its alignment with the local context and national priorities; examine the effectiveness of activities and adaptive measures in achieving intended results; analyse the changes generated at individual, institutional, and community levels in terms of effects, continuity, and empowerment; review accountability mechanisms to ensure participation, inclusion, and access to information for beneficiaries and stakeholders; and evaluate the quality of partnerships and coordination among all involved actors. The findings will provide lessons learned and actionable recommendations to inform future interventions and support the implementation of the National Strategy for De-I for Persons with disabilities.

3.2 Specific objectives

Measure the impact, outcomes, and achievements of the intervention, including how adaptive measures contributed to results, outcomes, and sustainability.
Identify key challenges, constraints, and enabling factors that influenced project performance, including contextual dynamics and stakeholder coordination.
Assess accountability, participation, and inclusivity mechanisms, ensuring that beneficiaries, families, and caregivers were meaningfully engaged and informed throughout the project.
Provide specific and practical recommendations and lessons learned for the project to scale-up, replication, and strengthen future programming, partnerships, and institutional capacity.

3.3 Evaluation criteria and evaluative questions

Changes (Effects, Continuity, Empowerment)

To what extent has the intervention contributed to measurable changes in the lives of persons with disabilities and their families at individual, institutional, and community levels?
To what extent does the project contribute to the empowerment of actors, targeted persons with disabilities, their families, and services?
How sustainable are these changes and the strengthened continuity of inclusive practices?

Relevance (Needs, Context, Lessons learned)

How well does the intervention align with the priority needs of beneficiaries, their families, caregivers, and government considering the local context and the National Strategy for De-I for Persons with Disabilities?
How were contextual analyses and beneficiary needs documented and used to inform project design, adaptive measures, and decision-making?

Effectiveness (Results, Adjustments, Technicality)

How effective were planned strategies and adaptive measures in achieving intended outputs and outcomes despite contextual challenges?
How adequate were the technical skills, capacities, and expertise of the project staff and implementing partners, and how effectively were they utilized to ensure quality results?

Accountability to Population (Participation, Expression, Information)

To what extent did the project ensure meaningful participation of beneficiaries, their families, and the project’s partners in planning, implementation, and monitoring?
To what extent were accessible mechanisms in place for beneficiaries to express feedback, receive information, and influence project decisions?

Partnership (Collaboration, Involvement, Relationship)

How have partners been actively involved in the decision-making processes, implementation, achievement of objectives, and overall success of the project?
How is the relationship between the project partners characterized in terms of being recoprocal, dynamic, and controlled?

Evaluation methodology and organization of the mission4.1 Collection methodology

The proposed evaluation approach is a summative evaluation considering that the methodology will be based on a mixed-methods data collection approach, ensuring triangulation between primary and secondary data sources as well as qualitative and quantitative data. This approach is expected to benefit the evaluation objectives and will include:

Desk review to analyze project and other resources documentation, assess successes, lessons learned, and measure the effectiveness of the intervention.
Focus Group Discussions with beneficiaries, caregivers, residential institutional staff from MoSD, inclusive daily care centre staff from MoSD, volunteers, project staff, consortium member staff.
Key Informant Interviews with project staff, consortium member staff, EU project focal point, representatives from MoSD, HCD, CBOs, OPDs, VTCs, NGOs, and any other stakeholders suggested by the evaluator.
Survey questionnaire with beneficiaries, caregivers, volunteers, and other relevant project beneficiaries.
A case study documenting the experience of one beneficiary from the intervention, providing an in-depth illustration of the project’s impact.

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

The Regional MEAL Manager is the authorized person who oversees the overall evaluation process and ensures adherence to guidelines and procedures.
De-institutionalization Project Manager is the person responsible for ensuring the evaluation process implementation.
The steering committee of the evaluation that reviews, approves, and validates the deliverables of the evaluation, which includes:
- De-institutionalization Project Manager
- Regional Inclusion Technical Specialist
- Jordan Senior MEAL Officer
- Jordan Country Manager or Acting Country Manager
- Logistics Manager
- Consortium member representative
- EU Representative (Optional).
4.3 Organization of the mission
The Evaluation Steering Committee will be responsible for validating the proposed evaluation methodology after the closure of the selection process. In addition, the steering committee must approve the inception report and evaluation methodology prior to the commencement of any fieldwork or any other substantive work.
The Evaluation Steering Committee will be part of the kick-off meeting, presentation of results, and closure of the evaluation.
The final report shall be reviewed and validated by the Evaluation Steering Committee before finalization and publishing.

Principles and values5.1. Protection and Anti-Corruption PolicyCode of Conducthttps://hi.org/sn_uploads/document/ID_CodeOfConduct.pdf Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassmenthttps://hi.org/sn_uploads/document/PI03_HI_Protection-Beneficiaries_EN.pdf Child Protection Policyhttps://hi.org/sn_uploads/document/PI02_HI-Child-Protection_EN_1.pdf Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policyhttps://hi.org/sn_uploads/document/PI04_IP_antiFraud-bribery-corruption-policy_1.pdf

5.2. Ethical measures*

As part of each evaluation, HI is committed to upholding certain ethical measures. It is imperative that these measures are considered in the technical offer:

Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.
Ensuring a person/community-centered approach: the technical offer must propose methods adapted to the needs of the target population (e.g. tools adapted for illiterate audiences / sign language / child-friendly materials, etc.).
Obtain the free and informed consent of the participants: the technical proposal must explain how the evaluator will obtain the free and informed consent and/or assent of the participants (including children under the age of 18).
Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data.

*These measures may be adopted during the completion of the inception report.

5.3. Participation of stakeholders and populations

Several stakeholders will be involved in the evaluation as follows:

1. Beneficiaries, Families/Caregivers: Women, Men, Boys, Girls with and without disabilities.

2. Project Staff, Consortium member staff, EU, MoSD, HCD, CBOs, OPDs, and NGOs.

3. Residential institutional staff and Inclusive daily care center staff from MoSD.

5.4. Others

It is essential that the process of data collection, as well as storage of data, be supported by careful ethical practice, including informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality, do no harm, and protection of data and data storage. Informed consent needs to include awareness of the evaluation data collection process and that the evaluation report may be published and publicly disseminated. Extra precaution must be taken in involving project beneficiaries, considering the sensitivity of the thematic issues tackled by this project. To protect the anonymity of communities, partners, and stakeholders’ names or identifying features of evaluation participants (such as community position or role) will not be made public.

The evaluator should engage in respecting the following ethical principles:

Child protection Principles;
Integrity (respect for gender sensitivity issues, especially when performing interviews/focus groups, religion, and beliefs);
Anonymity and confidentiality;
Independence and objectivity;
Veracity of information;
Coordination spirit;
Intellectual property of information generated during and by the evaluation (including report and annexes) will be transferred to the evaluation commissioner;
Quality of reporting;
With respect to timelines, in the event of late submission of the report, HI reserves the right to terminate the contract.
Project Quality Policy and Project Quality Framework.

Expected deliverables and proposed schedule6.1. Deliverables

Deliverable 1: An inception report refining/specifying the proposed methodology for answering the evaluation questions and an action plan, illustrating target groups & sample sizes, data analysis plan, detailed field work plan, and the evaluation evidence matrix – this inception report will have to be validated by the Steering Committee.
Deliverable 2: transcript of FGDs and KIIs implemented in English.
Deliverable 3: raw data from the collected survey.
Deliverable 4: A presentation document presenting the preliminary results, conclusions, and recommendations, to be presented to the Evaluation Steering Committee, including staff members from HI, consortium members, and the donor.
Deliverable 5: A final report of maximum 25 – 30 pages in English – excluding annexes – (using HI final report template and will be validated through a pre-defined checklist) that includes the following sections:
Table of contents.
Abbreviations list
Executive summary 3-4 pages (that can be used as a stand-alone document).
Presentation of the intervention evaluated (about HI, project objectives, results, activities deployed during intervention, project achievements)
Presentation of the evaluation (general objective, specific objectives, evaluation criteria/questions, detailed methodology, limitations, etc.)
Results (by evaluation criteria and evaluative question).
Conclusions
Recommendations
Annexes: ToR, inception report, tools and guides/protocols, profiles/persons interviewed (cartography), bibliography, conflict of interest, photos, etc.

6.2. End-of-Evaluation Questionnaire

An end-of-evaluation questionnaire will be completed with the evaluator, involving a member of the Evaluation Steering Committee and the person in charge of the evaluation.

6.3. Evaluation dates and schedule

Total mission duration: 40 working days (approximately 86 calendar days)

It is expected that the Evaluation process will take approximately 3 months from the period 1st September 2025 until 25th November 2025. A detailed work plan will be submitted as part of the technical offer. The draft inception report shall be submitted by 10th September 2025, and the final inception report shall be submitted by 27th September 2025. The first draft final evaluation report shall be shared by the evaluation team by 8th November 2025, while the final validated evaluation report – including all deliverables – shall be submitted by 20th November 2025.

*Note: The dates set in the evaluation work plan must be adhered to by the evaluation team.

Means
Expertise sought from the consultant(s)

Academic background in Childhood Development, Disability Inclusion, Social Protection, Social Sciences, and/or developmental studies with a minimum of a master’s degree in the relevant field (or bachelor’s degree compensated with 5 years of experience in implementing evaluations and assessments).
Solid experience in project evaluation and related methodologies for at least 3 years.
Demonstrated Experience in conducting participatory (qualitative and quantitative) evaluation techniques.
A broad experience in all aspects of the project cycle management.
Experience working with persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations, in general, is an asset.
Practical knowledge of rights-based approaches and Inclusion.
Strong analytical and report-writing skills.
Excellent speaking and writing skills in English
Speaking skills in Arabic within the evaluation team
French language is a plus.
Experience in project evaluation and related methodologies with EU-funded projects is a plus.

The consultancy team/firm must be available for the implementation of this evaluation, with no or limited other assignments currently ongoing with them.

Budget allocated to the evaluation

The overall cost of the evaluation, including transportation costs (international and local), logistics costs, data collection, accommodation, perdiem, transportation allowances to beneficiaries, and translation costs, is detailed in a budget.

Payments for the evaluation are according to the following:

First payment: 30% – after validation of the inception report.
Final payment: 70% – after validation of the final report and submission of all deliverables.

Caution: please note that the last payment is conditional on the validation of the final report and not on the sending of the final report. By validation, we mean validation of the quality and under no circumstances of the appreciation of the project evaluated (based on the quality checklist attached, chapter 6).

7.3. Available resources made available to the evaluation team

Will be shared when selected.

Submission of applications

Interested applicants are to submit a proposal by mail to tenders@jordan.hi.org with the subject “EU Final Evaluation”.

The Submitted offers shall include Technical Offers (maximum 5 pages that includes, understanding of the ToR/project to be evaluated, proposed methodology, workplan, profile of the team, etc.), Financial Offers (detailed in a separate document), CVs of the team (leader must be identified), two previous evaluation reports samples (preferably in similar sectors or areas of intervention), and references (in case of firms/companies, must submit Registration, Tax Clearane and any relevant documents)

The deadline for the submission of applications is 5 August 2025 @ 17:00 Amman Local Time (GMT+3).

Applications submitted after the deadline (day or hour) will not be considered. Selected consultants will be invited for an interview. Also, candidates who only submit resumes without technical and financial offers will be disregarded.

Awarding process

Offers will be assessed using the criteria below. The technical offer weight is 70% and the financial offer weight is 30% of the total weight.

Offers that score 80% of the technical offer will only be considered

Technical offer scoring criteria:

Implementation methodology and work plan: 40%.
Academic qualifications: 15%.
Related work experience of the consultant: 25%.
Team composition and distribution of roles 20%.

Following the technical offers selection, HI will select the lowest prices for equivalent service offers

FINANCIAL OFFER should be provided separately with the following criteria:

All costs must be in JOD.
Inclusive of all applicable taxes (including withholding tax).
Complete Bank Details.
Payment method.
The successful applicant is required to submit an invoice with the contracting amount.

Humanity & Inclusion is committed to protecting the rights of children and opposes all forms of child exploitation and child abuse. HI, contractors must commit to protecting children against exploitation and abuse.

Persons with disabilities are particularly encouraged to apply.

Appendices

HI’s Quality Framework, on which all evaluators must base their evaluation.

https://hinside.hi.org/intranet/upload/docs/application/pdf/2022-12/posterqualityframeworkhi_pqp_en.pdf

The Disability – Gender – Age Policy, which must guide the approach and the construction of evaluation tools in the technical offer.

https://hi.org/sn_uploads/document/IP_DisabilityGenreAge_1.pdf

How to apply

Submission of applications

Interested applicants are to submit a proposal by mail to tenders@jordan.hi.org with the subject “EU Final Evaluation”.

The deadline for the submission of applications is 5 August 2025 @ 17:00 Amman Local Time (GMT+3).