External Evaluator for At Home In Canada Programs

Terms of Reference: External Evaluation Consultant At Home in Canada Phase 4 Project

1. Background

Mothers Matter Canada (MMC) is a national leader in delivering evidence-based, culturally responsive settlement programming to vulnerable and isolated, and often low-income newcomer mothers of children between two and five years of age. The programs have their entry point in early childhood education and parental support programming. The flag programs HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) and SMART (Supporting Mothers and Raising Toddlers) build mothers’ confidence, capacity, and community connections and catalyze families’ settlement processes in Canada alongside enhancing children’s school-readiness. As the licensing and monitoring body of HIPPY and SMART, MMC ensures standardization, model fidelity, innovation, and continuous quality improvement across a national network of Service Provider Organizations (SPOs). The At Home in Canada Phase 4 (AHIC4) project is a multi-year initiative (2025–2028) funded by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). It aims to strengthen the settlement and integration outcomes of vulnerable, isolated, and newcomer/refugee mothers and their children by supporting capacity building among coordinators and home visitors, many of whom are newcomer women themselves. The project includes activities such as trainings for home visitors and coordinators at settlement organizations housing HIPPY and/or SMART, tool and resource development to address existing and emerging needs of partner SPOs, program adaptation for partners serving rural, small centre, and francophone communities, building bridges with Indigenous communities, and knowledge mobilization and capacity building for partners and program staff. To ensure upward and downward accountability and to capture learning to further strengthen its processes and programs, MMC seeks an external evaluator to evaluate the AHIC4 program. Following are more details on the purpose, expectations, and consultant experience:

2. Purpose of the Evaluation

The external evaluation will serve multiple functions: a. Learning & Improvement: To provide actionable insights for MMC, SPOs, and funders

on what is working well, where there are gaps, and how to improve programming, training, and capacity-building initiatives across the national HIPPY/SMART network.

b. Effectiveness & Impact Measurement: To assess the extent to which the project has contributed to increased SPO capacity, integration outcomes for newcomer/refugee mothers, improvements in child development and school readiness, and broader systemic outcomes such as employment readiness, sustainable living, digital inclusion, cultural safety, and community building.

c. Equity and Systems Change: To evaluate how well the project embeds, promotes, and contributes to sustainable livelihoods, gender-based analysis (GBA+), trauma-informed care, Indigenous-newcomer relationship building, anti-racism, and intersectional service delivery across multiple communities and languages.

d. Knowledge Mobilization: To generate evidence, lessons learned, and promising practices that can be disseminated across the settlement, early childhood education, and gender equity sectors in Canada.

3. Key Evaluation Questions

These evaluation questions can be modified based on consultation between external evaluator/s at the time of finalization of the evaluation framework.

a. Relevance and Design i. To what extent does the AHIC Phase 4 project respond to the evolving needs of

newcomer and refugee mothers and their families? ii. Are the program tools, processes and resources culturally, linguistically, and

contextually appropriate for diverse communities? b. Effectiveness and Outcomes

i. What changes have occurred at the SPO level in terms of staffing, training uptake, coordination, and quality of service delivery?

ii. How has participation in the HIPPY/SMART programs impacted mothers’ integration, language acquisition, social connection, digital literacy, and workforce readiness?

iii. How has partner SPO and sector capacity enhanced through partnership for implementing HIPPY/SMART programs?

iv. What improvements are observed in children’s early learning and school preparedness?

c. Implementation and Fidelity i. How consistently are training, tools, and monitoring protocols being implemented

across SPOs? ii. To what extent has MMC supported sites in maintaining fidelity to the

HIPPY/SMART models while allowing for contextual adaptation (e.g., rural, Francophone, Indigenous partnerships)?

d. Capacity Building and Innovation i. How effective have MMC’s capacity-building strategies been for coordinators and

home visitors (including training, mentorship, professional development, and leadership pathways)?

ii. What is the uptake and impact of new thematic modules (e.g., autism, gender-based violence, reconciliation, anti-racism) and digital tools?

e. Equity, Inclusion, and Cultural Safety for all partner SPOs and clients broadly, and more specifically for rural, small centre, and Official Language Minority Communities (OLMCs) serving partner SPOs and clients

i. To what extent does the project foster culturally safe, trauma-informed, and GBA+ aligned practices?

ii. Are Francophone, rural, small centre, and racialized SPOs and families experiencing equitable outcomes?

f. Sustainability and Systems Influence i. What structural changes (e.g., internal policies, workforce diversification,

partnerships) have occurred within SPOs as a result of the project? ii. What are the opportunities to scale or replicate effective elements of the program

model?

iii. What are good practices, challenges, lessons learnt, and recommendations for partner SPOs, MMC, and IRCC to strengthen programming and catalyze settlement outcomes?

4. Ethics and Values in Evaluation The consultant will be expected to uphold the highest ethical standards throughout the evaluation process. This includes:

a. Adopting a trauma-informed, culturally safe, and anti-oppressive approach in all engagements with clients, home visitors, coordinators, and community partners

b. Ensuring informed consent, privacy, and confidentiality for all participants c. Applying “do no harm” principles, particularly when engaging with vulnerable or

equity-deserving populations d. Embedding Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) and intersectionality in both

methodology and interpretation e. Respecting local and cultural norms, especially in communities with lived experience of

displacement, marginalization, or trauma f. Maintaining full transparency with MMC and partners about intent, use of findings, and

limits of confidentiality MMC reserves the right to approve all data collection tools and reserves the responsibility to intervene if evaluation processes do not align with the above values.

5. Consultant Qualifications (Revised)

The external evaluator may be an individual or a consulting firm/team, and must demonstrate the following:

a. Education: Graduate degree (Master’s or PhD) in a relevant field such as Social Work, Public Policy, Evaluation, International Development, Education, Gender Studies, or Community Health.

b. Professional Experience i. Minimum of 7 years of evaluation experience, including evaluations of large-scale,

multi-site social or settlement sector projects ii. Demonstrated experience conducting mixed-methods evaluations using

participatory, feminist, culturally responsive, and GBA+ frameworks. iii. Experience with early childhood development, family-centered or rights-based

programming, or maternal health and wellbeing is a strong asset. iv. Familiarity with Canada’s settlement sector, IRCC-funded programs, and

immigrant/refugee integration c. Technical Skills

i. Proficiency in analyzing both qualitative (e.g., interviews, focus groups) and quantitative (e.g., database/ETO, surveys) data.

ii. Experience in working with large datasets and performance measurement tools. iii. Ability to produce high-quality reports and accessible presentations tailored to

diverse audiences, including community-based organizations, government funders, and policy stakeholders.

d. Language and Accessibility

i. Bilingualism (English and French) is highly preferred; at minimum, the team must have capacity to collect and analyze data in both official languages.

ii. Demonstrated commitment to trauma-informed and inclusive evaluation practices.

6. Deliverables

# Deliverable Details Language Timeline 1 Final

Evaluation Framework

Includes methodology, evaluation questions, tools, indicators, and timelines

English Within 6 weeks of contract signing

2 Mid-Term Evaluation Report

Analysis of progress, recommendations, and emerging outcomes

English & French

November, 2026

3 Final Evaluation Report

Full assessment of project effectiveness, outcomes, and implementation; includes follow-up on mid-term recommendations

English & French

February, 2028

4 Presentation Decks

Visual presentation of findings for both mid-term and final reports

English & French

Alongside each report submission

5 Strategic Committee Participation

Participate in 2 to 3 meetings to present methodology, approach, and key findings

English and French (verbal)

Ongoing throughout the evaluation cycle

6 Submission of Raw Data

All anonymized raw data, transcripts, surveys, and notes used in evaluation

English and/or French

At time of mid term and final report submission

How to Apply? We strongly encourage applications from equity-deserving groups to apply, recognizing that they are “equity-deserving” rather than having to earn access to opportunities.

a. The technical proposal should include: i. A cover letter outlining interest and availability ii. A detailed methodology and evaluation plan aligned with the scope and questions

outlined in this ToR iii. A work plan with proposed timelines iv. CV(s) of the evaluator(s) highlighting relevant qualifications and evaluation

experience v. Two examples of similar evaluation reports completed in the past five years vi. Contact information for at least two professional references

b. The financial proposal should outline a total cost for the project (including fees, travel, taxes, and disbursements) with a breakdown by deliverable and timeframe.

7. Assessment Criteria:

Proposals will be assessed based on the following weightage:

a. Technical Proposal (60%), including methodology (25%), evaluator/team experience (20%), and proposed work plan and timeline (15%)

b. Financial Proposal (40%), based on cost-effectiveness and value for money

Final selection will consider both the quality of the proposed evaluation approach and the ability to deliver within the allocated budget.

8. Budget The available budget for this evaluation is CAD 55,000 to $60,000, all-inclusive of fees, travel, and other associated costs.