1. INTRODUCTION & RATIONALE

These Terms of Reference (ToR) specify the details for the final technical evaluation of the above-mentioned project funded by the U.S. Department of State and implemented by the International Research and Exchanges Board (hereafter IREX) and its partners, Bent Al-Rafedain Organization (BROB), Al Ghad League for Woman and Child Care, and the Federal Ministry of Education (MOE), Baghdad. The evaluation will focus on assessment of program activities implemented throughout the life of program and whether those activities led to successfully meeting project objectives and desired results. As a result of this evaluation, recommendations from the evaluator/s are also expected to improve the quality of future projects.

2. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The School Based Civic Engagement for Reconciliation program is a teacher professional development training program that develops a cadre of skilled educators equipped to support student well-being, promote reconciliation, and encourage active citizenship for students, families, and communities. The full program curriculum consists of in-person and virtual training bringing together diverse groups of educators from various geographic regions, religions, ethnicities, and political affiliations in Iraq as well as extracurricular activities for parents and youth including Parent Advisory Committee (PAC), Student Advisory Committee (SAC), Service as Learning, and Debate Club. 

Project Duration: October 1, 2022 – August 31, 2026

Program Objectives: 

• Educators increase capacity to foster empathy and active citizenship in their students, schools, and communities.
• Youth develop civic engagement skills for dispute resolution and peaceful coexistence.
• Educators and youth have opportunities to apply and share civic engagement skills to engage productively

Target Beneficiaries:

195 educators directly trained by SFR throughout life of program (Cohort 1: 2022 –2024, and Cohort 2: 2025-2026) including the following groups: 124 educators in Cohort I, 16 Master Trainers Cohort I, 50 educators in Cohort II, 2 Directorate General Coordinators (involved in both Cohorts), 3 Directorate General Coordinators (Cohort II), 8 extracurricular coaches (selected from cohort I participants)

Summary of Activities:

IREX selected an initial cohort of 124 educators, providing training on basic emotional support for conflict affected students, as well as training on fostering safe, supportive classrooms for all students, and TOT strategies for training other teachers on this content. IREX provided additional training on civic engagement and how to develop positive citizenship skills in youth. IREX also selected 16 Master Trainers, providing hands on training in advanced emotional support and inclusive education strategies and equipping them to train a new cohort of teachers on these topics. 

Along with attending the training, 50 educators implemented optional extra-curricular activities in their schools. In Cohort 1, IREX facilitated implementation of 8 Parent Advisory Committees, 9 Student Advisory Committees, 18 Service as Learning, and 18 Debate Clubs. After facilitating a hybrid Debate Club, IREX implemented the first ever youth Mock Parliament with 30 youth. 

In 2025, IREX selected 50 additional Cohort II educators and 3 new Directorate General coordinators to participate in the second cohort of SFR training providing both blended virtual and in-person workshops co-facilitated with Master Trainers, and utilizing the SFR curriculum to train them on basics of emotional support, safe and respectful learning environments, student centered learning, teacher leadership and citizenship education strategies.

3. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION 

The purpose of the evaluation is to make a systematic and objective assessment of the SFR program, its design, approach, implementation, and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability. The evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of IREX, program partners, and DRL for future programming. 

Principles underpinning the approach to the evaluation are: 

• Impartiality and independence of the evaluation process from the programming and implementation functions;
• Credibility of the evaluation, through use of appropriately skilled and independent experts and the transparency of the evaluation process, including wide dissemination of results;
• Participation of stakeholders in the evaluation process, to ensure different perspectives and views are considered; and
• Usefulness of the evaluation findings and recommendations, through timely presentation of relevant, clear, and concise information to decision makers.

4. FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION

The final report should be introduced by an initial discussion of the socio-political and human rights context of the project and the development of this context during the project period. It should then discuss, provide conclusions and recommendations on the following evaluation questions: 

Relevance and Impact: To what extent did SFR strengthen the education system’s capacity to support reconciliation, social connectedness, and civic engagement during and beyond the life of the project? 

• To what extent do students change attitudes and behaviors to reflect greater empathy, perspective and conflict resolution skills through Debate and Governance clubs?
• To what extent did SFR activities (including Mock Parliament) strengthen students’ and educators’ ability to bridge divides and collaborate across lines of identity, community, or belief? To what extent do Mock Parliament activities strengthen civic engagement skills?
• To what extent do Parent Advisory Committees increase motivation among parents to engage in school-based community activities and increase the number of parents who feel their voice is heard in school governance?
• To what extent do Service as Learning Courses increase student self-efficacy and likelihood of engaging in future civic service activities?
• To what extent did Debate Clubs and Government Clubs increase the number of actions taken by community actors that promote or protect freedom of religion or belief?

Effectiveness: To what extent does SFR training increase educator capacity to foster civically engaged and empathetic students? 

• Following the SFR training, to what degree do educators incorporate new civic education and/or inclusion activities and methods into their teaching practice?
• To what extent does SFR training increase educators’ confidence in integrating civic engagement across subjects?
• To what extent does SFR training increase educator’s confidence in creating an inclusive classroom?
• To what extent does SFR training increase the capacity of Master Trainers to train educators on the Civic Engagement for Reconciliation Curriculum (CERC)?

Sustainability: To what extent will changes in educator ability and practice be sustained over time? 

• What plans exist to continue student debate, government, and service-learning activities?
• How likely are educators to continue integrating civic education in their instruction?
• To what degree are participants motivated and prepared to disseminate strategies and methods to others? 

Access and Participation: To what extent did the program reach a broad and representative range of participants, and were there any barriers that limited participation for certain groups? How can the program strengthen access and ensure that all individuals—regardless of background or circumstance—have meaningful opportunities to benefit in the future? 

Replicability: What underlying conditions enabled the program to be successful? Under what conditions could the program be replicated in other contexts?

Impact & Spill Over: Were there any unforeseen positive/negative effects of the activities? Did any cross-school, cross-community, or cross-identity collaborations or initiatives emerge because of SFR participation?

Unmet Needs: Which unmet needs did the evaluators identify that would be relevant for IREX to investigate in an eventual continuation or adaptation of the project? 

Lessons Learned & Recommendations: Identify any lessons learned and provide recommendations evidenced during this evaluation. 

The evaluator/s will have access to the following information:

• Agreement and pre-Agreement documents;
• Interim program reports developed and submitted to the donor by IREX every quarter;
• Other MEL documents produced during the implementation of the project including: Raw data (requiring analysis as part of the scope of work) in Arabic for Cohort I of the following: Class Observation Reports, pre/post surveys on extracurricular activities, focus group discussion reports, 1 on 1 interviews with educators, and pre-post training curriculum surveys. Cohort II documents include pre-post training curriculum surveys, pre-post surveys on extracurricular activities; for both cohorts, quarterly progress surveys for educators will also be provided.

5. METHODOLOGY 

The evaluation should be mixed methods and carried out based on a desk study and engagement with Cohort II participants. The desk study should cover the following documents: 

• Project contractual documents and further amendments;
• Documents produced throughout the project;
• Evidence of impact collected by the project, including reports and products developed through life of program;
• Other relevant documentation.

Furthermore, the evaluation should be built on direct interviews with: 

• Beneficiaries including the following program participants:
• Randomly selected SFR Master Trainers from CI and CII
• Randomly Selected SFR Cohort I Alumni
• Randomly Selected SFR Cohort II Participants
• Randomly Selected SFR Cohort I & II Mock Parliament Youth
• Randomly Selected Cohort I & II Parents and Youth participating in each extra-curricular activity (Parent Advisory Committee, Student Advisory Committee, Service as Learning, Debate Club)
• IREX partners (Ministry of Education, Directorate General Training Institute Staff, BROB and Al Ghad) 

The evaluator should adopt an evaluation methodology coherent with the participatory approach of the project. The organization is expected to conduct a participatory evaluation providing meaningful involvement by the project partners, its beneficiaries, and other interested parties. Stakeholder participation is to be an integral component of the evaluation design and planning, data gathering, drafting of findings, evaluation reporting, and results dissemination. The evaluation should therefore focus not only on quantifiable results but also analyze processes and dynamics generated by the project, their scope (in terms of people and other actors involved) and their sustainability. The proposed framework of the evaluation can be subject to change based on the agreement between IREX.

Deliverables: All deliverables are to be submitted to IREX in English, electronically.

Deliverables include: 

• An inception report, to be submitted one week after the beginning of the evaluation, explaining the methodology, work program, and timetable for the evaluation.
• A final report to be submitted at the end of the evaluation with a maximum extension of 30 pages excluding annexes. 

The final evaluation report will be structured as follows: 

• Executive summary
• Main section:
  • Introduction including
    • Project description
    • Project context
    • Evaluation objectives and methodology
    • Analysis of the findings from the Pre / Post Parent and Youth Surveys and Extra Curricular Teacher Reports
  • Conclusions and recommendations
  • Lessons learned
  • Annexes including but not limited to:
    • Map of the project area
    • List of actors consulted
    • Literature and documentation consulted
    • Other technical annexes 

Budget: The maximum available budget for this evaluation is $15,000 USD all costs and taxes included. 

Travel within Iraq to Erbil is required for this external evaluation (tentative dates: April 6-8, 2026). Travel costs within Iraq will be covered directly by IREX including:

• Airfare in compliance with Fly America guidelines, if required
  • Meals and Incidentals
  • Lodging

8. DURATION OF EVALUATION AND TENTATIVE TIMEPLAN

The evaluation will not exceed 32 days over a four-month period, and it is expected to be conducted between March through June 2026. 

The tentative schedule is as follows: 

• Month 1: Desk review of core documents; initial meetings with IREX programming team; drafting and validation of the inception report (to be submitted by the end of week 4).
• Months 2 - 3: Analysis of Cohort I data, Interviews with project staff and partners, observation of final program event (April 2026), interviews with participants and relevant stakeholders.
• Month 4: Drafting of final report in collaboration with IREX (final version to be submitted no later than June 30, 2026); debriefing to IREX and relevant stakeholders. 

9. EVALUATOR SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE  

 Evaluation Organization is expected to: 

• Possess extensive experience in conducting similar evaluations of education programs in conflict and post-conflict areas as well as cross-cutting sectors.
• Demonstrate knowledge of strategic and operational management of education programs in conflict and post-conflict areas.
• Demonstrate sound knowledge of evaluation and data-collection methods.
• Be able to communicate effectively both orally and in writing in Arabic and English.
• Have previous proven working experience in similar contexts.
• Possess process management skills, such as facilitation and interview skills. 

HOW TO APPLY:

Interested candidates are requested to submit an electronic copy of their expression of interest/proposal by March 9, 2026, with the subject: REF: SAQMIP22GR0292 Final Evaluation SFR to Stanley Currier at scurrier@irex.org.

Candidates must forward in English: two-page (maximum) letter of intent indicating:

• The organization’s suitability for the assignment and match with previous work experience, qualifications etc.;
• Discussion of the work methodology it will use;
• Draft work plan and suggested timetable;
• Cost breakdown;
• Provisional availability to fulfill the evaluation as per the timeframes indicated in these Terms of Reference;
• Professional profile of the evaluation lead including CV (as an appendix);
• Include samples of previous reports.

Inquiries regarding the expression of interest/proposal process may be directed to Stanley Currier, Program Director, scurrier@irex.org.