1. Background and Project Context
Mental Health Uganda (MHU), in partnership with SIND Mental Health (SMH), has implemented the project “Creating Stories of Change: How Equal Access to Grants Improves Lives and Mental Well-Being” from January 2025 to December 2026. The project continues and expands earlier pilot experience in Lira and extends the ProjectBased Grant Facility to Soroti and Butambala.
For purposes of this evaluation, the Project-Based Grant Facility refers to an organised process through which persons with mental disabilities are supported to participate in entry and application workshops, group formation, financial literacy, project idea development, grant appraisal/application processes, livelihood or craft activities, follow-up and learning. The approach is therefore broader than grant disbursement alone: participants who do not receive grants may still gain knowledge, skills, confidence and access to future opportunities.
The project is based on the understanding that poverty, exclusion, stigma and mental health challenges are interconnected. It seeks to strengthen social and economic capacity, inclusion, participation and well-being while also strengthening local leadership, advocacy and MHU’s monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning
(MEAL) capacity.
The project has three interrelated outcomes:
• Outcome 1: Improved social and economic capacity and inclusion of persons with mental disabilities.
• Outcome 2: Increased awareness among local government and disability stakeholders and improved opportunities for members to access grants outside the MHU facility.
• Outcome 3: Enhanced MHU capacity to monitor, document and evaluate the progress and impact of the Project-Based Grant Facility.
1.1 Evaluation Context
The approved application and LFA/results framework provide the principal reference point for the evaluation. The evaluator will examine outputs, outcomes, indicators and assumptions and will distinguish between activities completed, outputs produced, changes observed and longer-term changes for which evidence is sufficient.
The evaluation should also examine the contribution made by MHU: how MHU engaged local government and other stakeholders; advocacy, awareness and campaigns undertaken; messages developed and disseminated; support provided to participants and leaders; and the challenges encountered in implementation.
2. Purpose and Use of the Evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation is to provide an independent, credible and practical assessment of project performance, sustainability and learning in Lira, Soroti and Butambala. It will assess what changed, how MHU and its partners contributed to the changes, what did not change or went differently from what was expected, and lessons for future programming.
2.1 How the Findings Will Be Used
• Performance and accountability: assess achievement against the approved application and LFA, including assumptions, relevant DAC criteria and sustainability.
• Learning: identify practical lessons, good practices, adaptations, challenges and recommendations across all three outcomes.
• Strategy and future programming: inform refinement of the Project-Based Grant Facility and MHU’s future strategic direction.
• Linking and learning: provide evidence and stories for the planned Linking and Learning event on 27 November 2026.
3. Overall Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will be structured around two overarching questions. The consultant should refine these into a
manageable set of sub-questions and an evaluation matrix during inception.
3.1 Performance, Accountability and Sustainability
To what extent did the project achieve the intended results described in the approved application and LFA, what changed for persons with mental disabilities in terms of access to livelihood, social participation and mental wellbeing, how did MHU and its partners contribute to these changes, and what conditions are likely to support or limit sustainability?
Under this question, the evaluator should apply relevant DAC criteria, particularly relevance, coherence where useful, effectiveness, efficiency, outcome-level change and sustainability. The evaluator should examine whether the assumptions in the LFA were held, partially held or did not hold and what this meant for results.
3.2 Learning
What has been learned by participants, District Association Leaders, MHU membership and secretariat, and other stakeholders through implementation of the three project outcomes, and how should this learning inform future grant management, livelihoods, advocacy, well-being, local leadership and MEAL practice?
The learning question should identify useful practices and adaptations from all three outcomes where evidence is available, including things that went wrong, unintended positive or negative results, and lessons that should be retained, changed or tested further.
3.3 Well-being
Well-being should be assessed as an important cross-cutting dimension rather than assuming to result automatically from receiving a grant or participating in training. The evaluator should propose appropriate indicators or measures during inception to capture the project’s understanding of well-being, including economic and emotional well-being as distinct dimensions where appropriate. The approach should be evidence-based and proportionate and should allow the evaluator to determine how best to assess the relationship between inclusion/equal participation and well-being.
4. Scope and Evaluation Framework
The evaluation will cover the project period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2026, with emphasis on results achieved by the time of fieldwork and evidence available for the end-of-term assessment. The geographical scope is Lira, Soroti and Butambala.
The evaluator should be cognizant of the fact that the three districts have different starting points and implementation contexts. Findings may therefore be compared where indicators, methods and evidence permit, but the evaluation should not assume that identical starting conditions existed. Differences should be interpreted in relation to local context, implementation choices and stakeholder conditions.
Outcome Core evidence to assess
Outcome 1
Participation and inclusion; skills from workshops; group formation; financial literacy; project development and application skills; grant access and use; livelihood/craft progress; economic and emotional well-being; social participation; confidence, belonging and other participantdefined changes.
Outcome 2
MHU engagement with local government and disability structures; advocacy and awareness activities; stakeholder awareness; recognition/inclusion in local structures; participation in decision-making; applications and access to grants outside MHU; relationships and institutional opportunities.
Outcome 3
MEAL systems; participant registration/tracking; grant follow-up; data quality; use of monitoring tools; quarterly reporting; feedback loops; evidence use in decisions; stories of change; organisational learning and capacity at national/district levels.
4.1 Assumptions and Theory of Change
The evaluator shall examine the assumptions in the LFA/results framework and the pathway from project inputs and activities to outputs and outcomes. For important assumptions, the evaluation should ask: Did the assumption hold? If not, why not? What was true instead? How did this affect the expected pathway to change?
4.2 Financial Processes and Grant Management
The evaluation shall explicitly examine the grant-management pathway, including grant appraisal/selection where relevant, approval and disbursement processes, use of funds for approved purposes, reporting and financial accountability by recipients, follow-up on grant use, challenges affecting implementation and any practical lessons for future grant facilities. This is an evaluation of the functioning and contribution of the grant process, not a financial audit.
4.3 What Is Essential
The evaluator should prioritise evidence needed to answer the two overall questions and assess the three outcomes. Information that is merely interesting but does not materially contribute to these questions should be treated as secondary or excluded.
5. Methodology and Evaluation Approach
The evaluation shall use a mixed-methods and participatory approach. The evaluator will develop the final methodology after reviewing the application, LFA/results framework, monitoring plan, quarterly reports, participant records, grant records, financial/grant documentation, training records and existing stories of change.
5.1 Inception Phase
An inception report is required before full data collection. It shall confirm the evaluation questions and subquestions, evaluation matrix, methodology, sampling, tools, fieldwork plan, data sources, data-storage arrangements, ethical safeguards, analytical approach, limitations and reporting schedule. MHU and SMH will review the inception report before fieldwork.
5.2 Quantitative Evidence
• Participant numbers and profiles are disaggregated where records permit.
• Workshop/training participation and completion.
• Applications submitted, approved and grants disbursed.
• Types of livelihood and craft activities supported.
• Grant follow-up, reporting and status of supported activities.
• Applications and access to external government or civil society grants where documented.
• Available baseline/endline or monitoring comparisons, without claiming measured change where no valid baseline exists.
5.3 Qualitative Evidence
• Individual interviews and/or focus groups with grant recipients and non-recipient participants.
• Interviews with District Association Leaders, MHU staff, SMH and relevant local government/disability/CSO stakeholders.
• Exploration of what changed, how change occurred, MHU’s contribution, barriers, adaptations and unintended results.
• Selected stories of change illustrating economic and emotional/social well-being and other pathways, without treating stories as representative on their own.
5.4 Triangulation
As an external evaluation, evidence must be verified wherever possible. Participant claims should be triangulated with attendance records, grant records, follow-up documentation, monitoring reports, stakeholder accounts and other available evidence. The evaluator should clearly distinguish verified results, participant perceptions, project records and evaluator interpretation.
6. Sampling, Inclusion, Ethics and Data Management
6.1 Sampling and Field Coverage
The evaluator shall propose a realistic purposive sampling strategy covering the three districts and the main participant and stakeholder categories. The sample should include different grant and non-grant experiences and, where feasible and ethically appropriate, women, youth and participants engaged in different livelihood/craft activities.
The project design identified different target groups and district contexts. These figures should be verified against project records rather than treated as final achievements. The evaluator should provide a clear justification for sample size in relation to the population, budget, field time and intended level of inference.
6.2 Inclusion and Ethical Considerations
• Participation must be informed and voluntary.
• Data collection should use language and formats participants understand.
• Protect confidentiality, privacy, dignity and non-discrimination.
• Avoid unnecessary personal or clinical information.
• Obtain explicit consent for identifiable stories, photographs, quotations and case studies.
• Use a do-no-harm approach when discussing mental health, livelihoods, stigma or personal experiences.
6.3 Data Management
The consultant shall specify how data will be collected, stored, backed up, analysed and transferred to MHU.
Personal identifiers should be minimised and access restricted. The consultant shall submit agreed datasets and analytical files electronically at the end of the assignment, subject to data-protection arrangements.
6.4 Assessing Well-being
The evaluator should have room to develop the most appropriate local/professional approach to measuring wellbeing. The inception report should explain the proposed indicators or measures and how they distinguish where
feasible, economic well-being from emotional/social well-being. The evaluation should avoid clinical diagnosis and should focus on relevant participant experiences and perceived changes.
6.5 District Comparison
The evaluation should identify common findings and district-specific findings. Comparisons should account for differences in baseline conditions, maturity of the intervention, local leadership, stakeholder engagement and other contextual factors.7
.
Key Areas of Assessment by Project Outcome
Key Areas of Assessment by Outcome
7.1 Outcome 1: Social and Economic Capacity and Inclusion
Assess whether participants gained and applied knowledge and skills through entry workshops, financial literacy, group formation, project idea development and grant application support. For grant recipients, assess grant use, reporting, status of livelihood/craft activities, challenges, continuity and perceived changes. For non-recipients, assess whether learning and participation produced useful knowledge, confidence, application skills or access to future opportunities.
The evaluation should specifically document changes where evidence permits in livelihoods/income, social participation, reduced stigma, recognition by local government/institutions, belonging, confidence and economic and emotional well-being. The evaluator should determine the appropriate measures rather than assuming a particular causal relationship.
7.2 Outcome 2: Awareness, Representation and External Opportunities
Assess MHU’s advocacy and stakeholder engagement: meetings, campaigns, awareness-raising, messages and other initiatives; stakeholder responses; challenges encountered; and evidence that MHU’s efforts contributed to engagement and participation opportunities. Assess whether members became more visible or recognised within relevant local systems. The evaluator should define what constitutes evidence of recognition rather than relying on a general perception.
7.3 Outcome 3 : MEAL Capacity and Organisational Learning
Assess the quality and usefulness of MHU’s registration, monitoring, follow-up, reporting and feedback systems;
how district information moved back to leaders and members; how evidence informed decisions; and which practices should be retained or strengthened.
7.4 Cross-cutting Learning
For each outcome, the evaluator should identify, where supported by evidence, good practices, adaptations, challenges, unintended positive and negative results, and recommendations for future programming.
8. Deliverables, Timeframe and Responsibilities
8.1 Consolidated Deliverables
Deliverable Indicative deadline
Inception report and evaluation matrix Within 5 working days of contract signing; before fieldwork
Final data collection tools Within 7 working days of contract signing and before fieldwork
Fieldwork in Lira, Soroti and Butambala As agreed in approved workplan
Preliminary findings and presentation materials By 25–26 November 2026, to support the 27 November Linking and Learning event
Presentation of evaluation findings 27 November 2026 – Linking and Learning event
Draft evaluation report Within 5 working days after the findings’ presentation, unless otherwise
agreed 70 Page Final evaluation report and data
sets/analytical files Within 5 working days after receipt of consolidated comments
The above deadlines are indicative and should be confirmed in the consultant’s inception workplan. The original
ToR states that the assignment should not exceed six weeks from 16 October 2026; MHU should ensure the final
contracting schedule reconciles this six-week ceiling with the 27 November findings event and final report requirements.
8.2 Structure of the report
The consultant will deliver a 70-page report with clear Methodology, Implementation Performance, Findings, Conclusions, Lessons Learned, Recommendations,
8.3 Responsibilities
• Evaluator: review documents, refine methodology, collect and analyse evidence, maintain independence, document limitations, triangulate findings and prepare the final report.
• MHU: provide relevant documents, facilitate access to project locations and stakeholders, coordinate logistics and provide factual clarification without directing findings.
• SMH: participate in review of the inception approach and findings and contribute partnership learning.
8.4 Quality Assurance
• Major findings must be supported by clear evidence.
• The evaluator must distinguish verified results from perceptions and interpretation.
• Preliminary findings discussions may clarify factual issues or identify missing documentation but must not alter independent conclusions.
• The final report should be concise enough to support use by management and partners while retaining adequate evidence.
9. Consultant Qualifications and Reporting Arrangements
The evaluator or evaluation team should demonstrate the following:
• Relevant academic qualification at postgraduate level or equivalent professional experience in programme evaluation, social research, development studies, public health, social work, disability inclusion, mental health, livelihoods or a related field.
• Demonstrated experience in conducting external programme/end-of-term evaluations using mixed methods.
• Strong quantitative and qualitative research, analysis and report-writing skills.
• Experience working with persons with disabilities, mental health programmes and/or community-based organisations in Uganda is preferred.
• Ability to assess results frameworks, indicators, assumptions, contribution and sustainability.
• Ability to translate evidence into practical recommendations and facilitate learning.
9.1 Reporting
The consultant will report to the MHU Project Manager. The evaluation will be jointly overseen by MHU and SMH.
MHU will coordinate documentation, stakeholder introductions and field logistics.
9.2 Budget and Financial Proposal
The evaluation will be implemented within the approved budget for the external local final evaluation. The consultant should submit a detailed financial proposal covering professional fees, travel, accommodation, fieldwork, data collection, analysis, reporting and other necessary costs. Significant cost assumptions should be stated clearly. The approved budget ceiling should be confirmed in the procurement/contracting documents so that proposals are comparable and remain within the available budget.
10. Evaluation of Consultant Proposals
The following criteria are intended for assessment of received consultant/firm proposals and should not be
confused with the evaluation criteria to be applied to the project itself.
No. Proposal assessment criterion Weight
1. Understanding of the assignment and proposed evaluation approach 20%
2. Relevant experience and track record 20%
3. Qualifications and competence of evaluation team 15%
4. Proposed methodology and evaluation design 20%
5. Work plan and ability to meet required deadlines 10%
6. Financial proposal 15%
Total 100%
11. Conclusion
The evaluation should provide MHU and SMH with a credible account of what changed for persons with mental disabilities in Lira, Soroti and Butambala, how MHU and its partners contributed to those changes, what worked and did not work, and what conditions are needed for results to continue. It should give equal attention to performance/accountability and learning, while generating practical evidence on livelihoods, economic and emotional well-being, inclusion, advocacy, grant management and MEAL capacity.
12. Submission deadline:
Interested consultants/firms should submit technical and financial proposal in PDF and not exceeding 15 pages format to Mental Health Uganda by 12 October 2026 at 4:00 p.m. via procurement@mhu.ug;
No hand delivered applications will be allowed.
