TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR)
Sustainability & Exit Verification Study with Case Study Documentation
Implementing Partners: LEADS, Koshish Charitable Trust, Disha Vihar Trust, Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust
Assignment duration: 20 calendar days
1. Background
The Project on education among children in four districts of Jharkhand was implemented from March 2023 to March 2026 (37 months) by four local partner organisations: Life Education and Development Support (LEADS) and Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust in Jharkhand, and Koshish Charitable Trust and Disha Vihar Trust in Bihar, with support from TDH Germany and BMZ.
The project worked across 60 villages in Koderma and Giridih districts (Jharkhand) and Nawada and Jamui districts (Bihar). It aimed to improve the education standards by strengthening child protection systems, improving access to quality education, building livelihood alternatives households, and supporting children's and youth participation and advocacy at village, block, state, and national levels.
A baseline study was conducted at project start, and an independent Final Evaluation was completed in April–May 2026. That evaluation applied a mixed-methods, utilisation-focused approach against the OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability), covering all 60 project villages through focus group discussions, key informant interviews, case studies, and secondary data review, with 120 children/youth, 80 women, 40 staff, and 25 government and community stakeholders participating.
The project is now closing (July 2026). This assignment is designed as a distinct, tightly bounded exercise that adds value the Final Evaluation could not provide within its own scope and timeframe.
2. Rationale for this Assignment
The Final Evaluation report already provides a credible, comprehensive assessment of project performance against all OECD-DAC criteria.
Instead, this assignment focuses on two things the Final Evaluation, by its own design, could not fully capture:
- Operational continuity at closure — whether the structures, agreements, and linkages the project built (child protection committees, school management committees, women's groups, livelihood groups, government scheme linkages) are actually positioned to continue functioning without project support, verified at the point of project exit rather than during the evaluation's field phase in February–March 2026.
- Human-level documentation — a small set of in-depth case studies that capture individual and community-level change in narrative form, for use in donor reporting, learning, and communications, complementing the aggregate findings already presented in the Final Evaluation.
- Consultants engaged for this assignment should treat the Final Evaluation report as a foundational reference document, not a benchmark to be re-tested.
3. Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this assignment is to verify the sustainability and exit-readiness of key project structures at the point of closure, and to document a small set of in-depth case studies illustrating change at the individual, household, and community level.
Specific Objectives
- Verify the current functional status of key community and institutional structures established or strengthened by the project (village/block-level Child Protection Committees, School Management Committees, women's entrepreneurial groups, children's and youth groups).
- Confirm the status of handover arrangements and linkages to government schemes and duty-bearers (e.g. ICDS, Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Society/JSLPS, Bihar Rural Livelihoods Mission/BRLM, block and panchayat-level bodies) that the project facilitated on behalf of target households and groups.
- Identify and document practical risks to continuity, and produce an actionable, partner-specific handover checklist that can be used immediately by LEADS, Koshish, Disha Vihar, and Baliga Trust after project closure.
- Develop 5–6 in-depth, well-verified case studies capturing meaningful change experienced by children, youth, women, or households as a result of the project, suitable for donor reporting and communications use.
4. Scope of the Assignment
This assignment is intentionally narrow in scope, in line with the 20-day timeframe:
- Geographic scope: a purposive sample of 8–10 villages (out of the project's 60), selected to represent both states, both implementing partners per state, and a spread of stronger and weaker-performing sites as identified in the Final Evaluation — not a full census of project villages.
- Thematic scope: sustainability and exit-readiness of structures and linkages, and case study documentation. This assignment does not re-assess relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, or impact — these are considered settled by the Final Evaluation.
- Respondent scope: a small, targeted set of key informants (partner field staff, committee members, a subset of government counterparts) rather than a full population survey.
- Case studies: 5–6 stories only, selected in consultation with tdh and partners to reflect diversity across geography, partner organisation, and theme (education, protection, livelihoods, participation).
5. Key Study Questions
A. Assess implementation of recommendations from the final evaluation.
- Which recommendations have already been implemented?
- Which remain outstanding?
- What prevented implementation?
B. Sustainability & Exit Verification
- Are village- and block-level Child Protection Committees, School Management Committees, and women's/youth groups still meeting and functioning without direct project facilitation?
- Have formal handover agreements, or transition plans been signed or communicated to relevant government bodies and community structures?
- Are households and groups that were linked to government schemes and entitlements (ICDS, JSLPS/BRLM, scholarships, ration cards, etc.) still able to access these independently?
- What specific risks to continuity have partner staff and community members identified, and what would mitigate them?
- What immediate, low-cost actions can each implementing partner take in the weeks immediately following project closure to secure continuity?
- How are the groups formed under the project functioning? Is the community ready for project withdrawal? Which risks remain?
C. Case Studies
- What tangible change has occurred in the life of the child, youth member, woman, or household profiled — in their own words and corroborated by at least one other source (family member, facilitator, or committee record)?
- What specific project intervention(s) contributed to this change, and what would this person's situation likely look like without the project?
- What does this individual's story suggest about the durability of the change going forward?
D. Next Phase
Generate recommendations for
- Phase II
- Scale-up
- Replication
- Advocacy
6. Case Study Documentation — Detailed Requirements
Case studies are a distinct deliverable within this assignment, not an illustrative add-on. They should meet a higher narrative and verification standard than the illustrative quotes already included in the Final Evaluation.
6.1 Selection Criteria
- 5–6 case studies in total, distributed across: at least one per implementing partner (LEADS, Koshish, Disha Vihar, Baliga Trust), and a spread across the project's core themes — education/bridge courses, child protection, livelihoods/women's entrepreneurship, and children's/youth participation.
- Cases should be selected jointly by the consultant and tdh/partner focal points, based on shortlists proposed by field staff, and should reflect genuine, verifiable change rather than the single most dramatic story available.
- Preference for cases that can be corroborated by a second source (a committee record, a teacher, a family member, or a facilitator) in addition to the individual's own account.
6.2 Methodology
- Semi-structured, narrative-style interviews (in the local language, with translation/back-translation as needed) using a most-significant-change-style approach: what changed, why, and what difference it has made.
- Free, prior, and informed consent, including age-appropriate assent from children and consent from a parent/guardian, following terre des hommes Germany's Child Safeguarding Policy. Consent must explicitly cover use of the story (and any photographs) in donor reports and external communications.
- Where a child or young person is profiled, names may be changed or withheld at the family's request; any photographs must follow tdh's child-safeguarding image guidelines.
6.3 Output Format
- Each case study: 500–800 words, with a short standardised structure (context situation before the project
- what changed role of the project outlook/sustainability ? direct quote).
- Delivered both embedded in the final report (Section on Case Studies) and as a separate, donor-ready standalone document (with consistent formatting, suitable for direct extraction for donor reporting or communications use).
- Photograph(s) for each case study only where consent has been obtained, delivered as separate image files with a caption and consent reference.
7. Overall Methodology
- The assignment should use rapid, light-touch methods appropriate to a 20-day timeframe:
- Desk review of the Final Evaluation report, project proposal, partner exit/transition plans (if they exist), and relevant monitoring data.
- Key informant interviews with partner field staff and management, and a small number of government/duty-bearer counterparts.
- Short, structured checklist-based verification visits to sampled committees/groups (functionality checklist rather than a full FGD protocol).
- Narrative interviews for the case study component, as detailed in Section 6.
- Triangulation between staff accounts, community-level verification, and (where available) documentary evidence such as MOUs, meeting minutes, or scheme enrolment records.
- The consultant(s) are expected to remain within the bounded scope defined above. Any request from partners or the field to expand scope (e.g. into new villages, new themes, or effectiveness/impact questions) should be flagged to tdh for a decision, not absorbed informally into the assignment.
8. Timeline (20 Calendar Days)
Days Task Output
Day 1–3 Desk review; finalise verification checklist, case study protocol, and consent materials; agree village and case study sample with tdh/partners Inception note (2–3 pages) with final sample, tools, and workplan
Day 4–5 Logistics, scheduling, and consent arrangements with partners and communities Confirmed field schedule
Day 6–13 Field visits to 8–10 villages: verification checklists with committees/groups, KIIs with staff and government counterparts, case study interviews Completed field data, signed consent forms
Day 14–16 Data analysis, drafting of handover checklists per partner, drafting of case studies Draft findings and draft case studies
Day 17–18 Validation session with tdh and implementing partners; incorporate feedback Revised draft report
Day 19–20 Finalisation and submission Final report + standalone case study document + partner handover checklists
9. Deliverables
- Inception note (max 3 pages): final village/case sample, tools, and detailed workplan — due Day 3.
- Draft Sustainability & Exit Verification report (max 20 pages excluding annexes), including a one-page handover checklist per implementing partner — due Day 16.
- Draft case studies (5–6, embedded in the draft report) — due Day 16.
- Final report incorporating validation feedback, with partner handover checklists as annexes — due Day 20.
- Standalone case study document (donor/communications-ready formatting, 5–6 stories, consent-cleared photographs where available) — due Day 20.
10. Evaluator/Consultant Profile
A single consultant, or a small two-person team, with:
- Demonstrated experience in child protection, community-based systems, or social sector programme sustainability assessments in India, ideally in Bihar and/or Jharkhand.
- Experience conducting and writing high-quality narrative case studies for development sector donors.
- Working knowledge of local languages spoken in the project areas, or a clear plan for translation/interpretation support.
- No prior direct role in delivering this project (to preserve an independent perspective), though prior familiarity with the Final Evaluation or the mica-belt context is an asset.
- Demonstrated understanding of, and prior training in, child safeguarding and ethical research with children.
11. Ethical Considerations and Child Safeguarding
This assignment must fully comply with Baliga Trust’s Child Safeguarding Policy. This includes informed consent from adults, age-appropriate assent from children, consent from parents/guardians for any minor profiled, confidentiality and data protection for all respondents, and voluntary participation with the right to withdraw at any stage. Consent for case studies must separately and explicitly cover the intended donor-reporting and communications use of the story and any images.
Given the sensitivity of mica mining and child labour as topics, the consultant(s) must avoid any activity or question that could expose a household, child, or community member to risk of retaliation, stigma, or legal exposure, and should apply conservative judgement in what is documented and how it is described.
12. Management and Reporting Lines
The consultant(s) will report to the Dr A V Baliga Memorial Trust, in coordination with the three implementing partners (LEADS, Koshish Charitable Trust, Disha Vihar Trust), who will facilitate field access, introductions, and logistics. A short validation session (Day 17–18) with TDH and partner representatives is mandatory before the report is finalised.
13. Budget and Payment Schedule
Suggested payment schedule:
- 30% upon submission and approval of the inception note (Day 3).
- 40% upon submission of the draft report and draft case studies (Day 16).
- 30% upon submission and approval of the final deliverables (Day 20).
14. Submission Requirements for Interested Consultants
- A brief technical proposal (max 4 pages) outlining understanding of the assignment, proposed approach, and workplan within the 20-day window.
- CV(s) of proposed consultant(s), highlighting relevant experience in child protection/sustainability assessments and case study writing.
- A financial proposal within the available budget ceiling.
- One sample of a previously written case study or similar narrative report (if available).