External Final Evaluation fot the project in Moldova: Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools

Terms of Reference

External Final Evaluation

Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools

Project title Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools

Implementing organization Caritas Czech Republic (CCR)

Place of implementation Republic of Moldova — rural areas and small towns across the North, Centre and South development regions

Total project budget EUR 1 077 252

Donor / contracting authority European Union, represented by the European Commission / EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova

Duration of the action 01/01/2024 - 31/12/2026

Type of contract Service contract for external evaluation, fixed all-inclusive price

Indicative level of effort

• 22 working days over 6–8 weeks

Application deadline 9th September 2026

Deadline for approved final report 15th December 2026

1. Introduction and context

CCR is seeking an external evaluator, team of consultants or evaluation company to conduct the final evaluation of the action “Better sanitation and hygiene facilities for students in rural schools”, funded by the European Union under the call Support for Civil Society in the Republic of Moldova, Lot 3, and implemented by CCR with AO Local Democracy Agency Moldova and AO SynergyHub.

The final evaluation will verify whether the action achieved its expected results in adequate quality and scope, assess the relevance and sustainability of the technical solutions selected, document learning, and provide practical recommendations for CCR, the implementing partners, schools, local public authorities and the donor. The approved final evaluation report will be annexed to the final narrative report submitted to the European Commission.

2. Project background

The action responds to persistent gaps in school WASH infrastructure in rural Moldova, where local budgets and technical capacities are limited. Ministry of Health estimates from 2021 indicated that only around half of educational institutions had running water meeting minimum legal requirements for drinking water, while independent reports found a majority of schools still relying on toilets outside the school building. The action combines infrastructure improvement, technical assistance, local ownership and hygiene education.

2.1 Goal and intervention logic

The action aims to improve the wellbeing of vulnerable children in Moldova by increasing access to safe WASH facilities and strengthening hygiene awareness in 25 vulnerable schools. It targets students, school staff, parents, local authorities and surrounding communities through improved water and sanitation services and related awareness-raising. Main activities include school mapping and selection; technical assessments and designs; contracting and supervision of works; training on maintenance, water and waste management; hygiene education and promotion; distribution of hygiene kits to adolescent girls; a KAP study; and coordination with authorities and WASH actors. Detailed activities, the logframe and the budget are set out in the approved proposal and annexes to be provided to the evaluator.

2.2 Target groups and geographical scope

Direct target groups are 25 selected schools in rural areas and small towns, parents’ and teachers’ associations, approximately 2,500 students, approximately 75 teachers and administration staff, and at least 4,000 parents. The action is expected to indirectly benefit surrounding communities, local authorities and education stakeholders. The evaluation shall cover a sample of schools across the North, Centre and South regions, including schools receiving different combinations of water supply, sanitation and hygiene education support.

3. Purpose, objectives and users of the evaluation

The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess the overall performance, achievements, quality and sustainability of the action and to generate evidence-based recommendations for future CCR programming in school WASH, community infrastructure, civil society engagement and cooperation with local public authorities. In particular, the evaluation will:

Assess whether the action achieved its intended outputs and outcome and contributed to the expected impact, and evaluate the relevance of its design against school WASH needs, national priorities and minimum technical standards.

Assess the quality, functionality, accessibility, safety and use of the installed or refurbished water and sanitation infrastructure.

Review the effectiveness of capacity building, hygiene education and KAP activities, the extent to which the capacities of the two co-applicant CSOs were strengthened, and the efficiency of implementation, procurement and partner coordination.

Assess the arrangements for operation and maintenance after closure, and identify lessons learned, good practices, unintended outcomes and prioritised recommendations.

The primary users are CCR Moldova and CCR headquarters, the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Republic of Moldova, AO LDA, AO SynergyHub, participating schools, local public authorities, education directorates and other WASH and education stakeholders.

4. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation covers the full implementation period from 01/01/2024 to 31/12/2026, or the latest available implementation period at the time of the assignment, and all geographical areas and components of the action. It shall assess both implementation processes and results, including the needs assessment and school selection, technical assessments and designs, procurement and works, maintenance training, hygiene promotion, community engagement, the KAP study, monitoring and feedback mechanisms, visibility, and coordination with authorities and other actors.

The evaluation takes place in the final months of implementation, so facilities completed late in the action will have been in use for a short period only. It is therefore expected to assess the conditions and arrangements for sustained results and the early evidence of use and behaviour change, rather than to establish realised long-term impact. Bidders should reflect this in their proposed design, and the evaluator shall state it among the limitations in the final report.

5. Evaluation criteria and key questions

The evaluation will be guided by the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, adapted to the design of the action and the school WASH context. The questions below are indicative. During inception they shall be refined and prioritised with CCR into an evaluation matrix containing no more than twelve evaluation questions, each with sub-questions, indicators, data sources and methods.

Criteria

Indicative evaluation questions

Relevance and coherence

To what extent did the action respond to the priority WASH needs of the selected schools and communities, and how did it align with national priorities, minimum national technical standards and the civil society objectives of the call?

Were the mapping study, selection criteria and selection decisions transparent, evidence-based and sensitive to vulnerability, gender, disability and technical feasibility? Were schools assessed but not selected given a justification and signposted to alternatives, as foreseen in the design?

How well did the action coordinate with the Ministry of Education and Research, education directorates, LPAs and other WASH actors — in particular the Government school sanitation grant scheme under Decision no. 260/2023, GIZ / EU4Moldova, ADA / IBRD and the European Village programme — and was duplication avoided?

Effectiveness

To what extent were the three outputs achieved against logframe targets and indicators? Are the water supply systems and sanitation facilities functional, accessible, safe, dignified and correctly used?

To what extent were the implemented infrastructure improvements (water filtration systems and sanitation facilities) compliant with applicable national technical standards, construction norms and regulations?

Did the hygiene education materials, training of trainers and mobile trainer groups measurably improve knowledge and practice among students, staff, parents and local actors? What do the KAP results show, and how robust are they?

To what extend did AO LDA and AO SynergyHub improve their organizational, technical project management, advocacy and partnership capacities as a result of the action? Which capacities are likely to be retained and applied beyond the project?

Efficiency

Were financial, human and technical resources used economically and on time? How efficient were procurement, contracting, contractor supervision and partner coordination, and how well were delays, cost increases and bottlenecks managed?

What was the approximate cost per school and per student for each intervention type, and how does this compare with alternatives available in Moldova?

To what extent did LPAs co-finance works where the required investment exceeded project allocations, as foreseen in the design, and what did this change for ownership and maintenance?

Impact and early outcomes

What changes can be observed for students, adolescent girls, school staff, parents, school management and surrounding communities? Has the action contributed to healthier, more dignified school environments and greater local ownership of WASH infrastructure?

What unintended outcomes, positive or negative, can be identified — including for schools that were assessed but not selected?

Sustainability

Are schools and LPAs able and willing to operate and maintain the installed systems after closure? Are maintenance roles, budget lines, spare parts, consumables and technical

[Click the Apply button below to apply, and Create my CV to build a CV tailored to this offer, professionally]