Most evaluation disappointments start in the Terms of Reference. A vague ToR produces a generic report. This pack walks you through the 9 ingredients, honest costing, and the pre-send checklist -- so the research you commission actually answers your question.
4 modules~100 minInteractiveIndia-context
Your progress
0% complete
Your Capstone
Polished ToR + Costing Sheet
By Module 4 you will have a ready-to-send Terms of Reference with all 9 ingredients, an honest budget, and a quality-control checklist. The capstone compiles your module answers into a single document.
Module 1 -- ~25 min
The 9 ingredients of a good ToR
A ToR is a contract between a commissioner and a researcher. Most bad evaluations trace to a missing or vague ingredient in the ToR -- not to bad fieldwork. If you get these nine right, even an average research firm will deliver something useful.
The 9 ingredients
Background and context -- what programme, where, how long, key facts. Not a marketing summary; an honest operational description.
Purpose and intended use -- who will use the findings, for what decision, by what date. "For learning" is not a purpose.
Research questions -- 3-5 specific, answerable questions. Each should begin with "To what extent..." or "How does..." or "What factors..."
Scope and limitations -- what is in, what is out, what you already know the study cannot answer.
Methodology expectations -- you need not prescribe the method, but name the design family (qualitative, quantitative, mixed) and any non-negotiables (e.g., "must include direct beneficiary voices").
Deliverables and timeline -- inception report, draft report, final report, presentation. Attach dates.
Team composition and qualifications -- sector expertise, language requirements, gender composition for fieldwork, prior India experience.
Budget indication or ceiling -- giving a range ("INR 12-15 lakh") attracts realistic bids. Hiding the budget attracts inflated ones.
Ethics and data management -- IRB expectations, consent protocols, data ownership, GDPR/DPDP 2023 compliance.
Worked example
Pratham needs a midline evaluation of its Read India programme in Rajasthan. Budget: INR 18L. Timeline: report needed by March 2027 for board renewal decision.
Ingredient 2 (Purpose): "The findings will be presented to the Pratham Board in April 2027 to inform whether to continue, modify, or discontinue the Rajasthan cluster model. The primary audience is the Board and State Director."
Ingredient 3 (Questions): (1) To what extent have foundational literacy outcomes improved in intervention villages vs. comparison villages? (2) What programme components do field staff identify as most/least effective? (3) What is the per-child cost of the current delivery model?
Your ToR Ingredients Sheet
Draft each ingredient for your real study. These save automatically and flow into the capstone.
Programme name, geography, duration, scale, key facts an outsider needs
Who uses findings, for what decision, by when?
Start each with "To what extent...", "How does...", or "What factors..."
Saved
Self-check
A ToR states: "The purpose of this evaluation is learning and accountability." What is wrong with this?
Nothing -- it covers both bases
It names no specific decision, audience, or deadline -- so the researcher cannot prioritise
It should say "impact" instead of "learning"
The word "accountability" is inappropriate in a ToR
Correct. "Learning and accountability" is a category, not a purpose. A useful purpose statement names who will read the report, what decision it informs, and by when. Without this, the researcher optimises for the wrong audience.
Module 2 -- ~25 min
Choosing the right research type
The most common ToR failure: asking for "an impact evaluation" when all you need is a process review. Or asking for "a baseline" when you actually need a situational analysis. The mismatch wastes money and produces reports nobody acts on.
Research type decision tree
If you want to know...
You need...
Typical cost (India, 2026)
Did the programme cause change?
Impact evaluation (RCT, quasi-exp, DiD)
INR 25-80L
What changed, but not necessarily why?
Outcome evaluation (pre-post, comparison)
INR 12-30L
How is the programme being delivered?
Process evaluation / implementation review
INR 6-15L
What do stakeholders think and experience?
Qualitative study (FGDs, interviews, case studies)
INR 5-12L
What exists before we start?
Baseline / situational analysis
INR 8-20L
Is the programme theory sound?
Evaluability assessment / ToC review
INR 4-8L
Common mismatches
"Impact evaluation" with INR 10L budget -- impossible for credible causal claims. Re-scope to outcome evaluation or process review.
"Baseline" for a programme already 2 years in -- too late. Call it a midline situational analysis.
"Mixed-methods" without specifying integration -- you get two parallel reports, not one mixed study. Specify how strands will integrate.
The evaluability question
Before commissioning a full evaluation, ask: is this programme evaluable? Does it have a clear theory of change, measurable outcomes, sufficient implementation fidelity, and enough time elapsed for effects to show? If no, commission an evaluability assessment first (INR 4-8L, 6-8 weeks). It saves you from a INR 30L study that produces "insufficient data to conclude."
Your Research Type Decision
Match your need to the right type. This feeds into your ToR methodology section.
Design family, non-negotiables, what you leave open for the researcher to propose
Theory of change clear? Outcomes measurable? Enough time elapsed? Data systems in place?
Saved
Self-check
An NGO running a 2-year nutrition programme in Jharkhand has INR 10L for evaluation. They want to claim "impact." What should you advise?
Proceed with an RCT -- it is the gold standard
Skip evaluation entirely -- INR 10L is too little
Re-scope to outcome evaluation with honest limitation statement about causal claims
Do a desk review only
Correct. INR 10L cannot support a credible impact evaluation (no RCT, no strong quasi-experimental design at that budget). An outcome evaluation with pre-post comparison is feasible and honest. The ToR should explicitly state "this study will document outcomes but cannot make causal claims."
Module 3 -- ~25 min
Honest costing in India
The fastest way to get a bad evaluation: under-budget it. The second fastest: give no budget indication and let researchers guess. This module gives you 2026 cost benchmarks so you can either set a realistic ceiling or verify that proposals are reasonable.
Research cost components (India, 2026)
Component
Range (INR)
Notes
Senior researcher / team lead
INR 8,000-15,000/day
Higher in Delhi/Mumbai; lower in Tier-2 cities
Research associate
INR 3,500-6,000/day
Fresh MA/MSW graduates
Field enumerator
INR 1,200-2,500/day
Plus travel + per diem
Quantitative survey per respondent
INR 350-700
Includes data entry, cleaning
Qualitative interview (incl. transcription)
INR 2,500-5,000
Add INR 1,500 for translation
Focus group discussion
INR 6,000-12,000
Facilitator + note-taker + venue + refreshments
Travel (Tier-1 to field)
INR 3,000-8,000/trip
Varies by state; Northeast highest
Inception report
5-8 days senior time
Often under-budgeted; critical for alignment
Analysis + report writing
15-25 days senior time
Most under-estimated line item
Institutional overhead
10-20% of direct costs
For research firms; independent consultants lower
Budget reality checks
Under INR 5L: desk review or very small qualitative study (10-15 interviews). Cannot credibly do quant.
INR 5-12L: solid qualitative study OR small quant survey (200-300 respondents). Not both at depth.
INR 25-50L: large-scale outcome evaluation with multiple rounds of data collection.
INR 50L+: impact evaluation territory (RCT or strong quasi-experimental).
Worked example -- Budget sketch for a INR 15L outcome evaluation
Senior researcher: 30 days x INR 10,000 = INR 3,00,000
Research associate: 40 days x INR 4,500 = INR 1,80,000
4 enumerators x 20 days x INR 2,000 = INR 1,60,000
Quant survey (400 respondents x INR 500) = INR 2,00,000
Qual (25 interviews x INR 3,500 + 4 FGDs x INR 8,000) = INR 1,19,500
Travel + per diem = INR 1,80,000
Overhead (15%) = INR 1,70,925
Contingency (5%) = INR 56,975
Total: INR 14,67,400
Your Budget Sketch
Draft budget ingredients 6-8 of your ToR.
Inception report date, draft date, final date, presentation date
Expertise, languages, gender, India experience
Saved
Self-check
A ToR for a mixed-methods evaluation in rural Maharashtra has no budget indication. Three proposals come back: INR 8L, INR 22L, and INR 45L. What does this spread tell you?
The market is competitive -- pick the cheapest
The most expensive one must be the best
The ToR was too vague -- researchers interpreted the scope completely differently
All three are valid -- choose based on team composition
Correct. A 5x spread means the scope, method, and depth were interpreted entirely differently. The INR 8L proposal is probably a desk review with interviews; the INR 45L is probably a full quasi-experimental design. A clear budget range in the ToR (e.g., "INR 15-20L") would have attracted comparable proposals.
Module 4 -- ~25 min
The pre-send checklist
You have drafted all 9 ingredients. Before you send the ToR to potential researchers, run it through this quality-control checklist. Every item here comes from a real failure pattern observed in Indian development organisations.
The 12-point pre-send checklist
Decision test -- can you name the person who will act on the findings and the specific decision they face? If no, the purpose is still vague.
Question test -- are all research questions answerable with the proposed method and budget? Cross-check each question against the method and cost.
Timeline reality -- is the fieldwork window feasible given the school/agriculture calendar, monsoon, election season, festival periods?
Language check -- have you specified the fieldwork language(s) and whether instruments need translation/back-translation?
Ethics completeness -- IRB, consent protocol, data ownership, child protection policy (if children are respondents), DPDP 2023 compliance.
Deliverable specificity -- does each deliverable have a format description (e.g., "draft report, max 30 pages excluding annexes")?
Review process -- how many rounds of comments? Who reviews? What is the turnaround time? If unstated, researchers assume one round.
Proposal requirements -- what should proposals include? (Technical approach, budget breakdown, team CVs, sample work, references.)
Selection criteria -- state the weights (e.g., technical approach 40%, team 30%, budget 20%, references 10%). Unstated criteria invite complaints.
Inception report clause -- require an inception report 2-3 weeks in. This is the single most important quality gate. It catches method mismatches early.
Intellectual property -- who owns the report? Can you publish? Can the researcher publish academic papers from the data? Clarify upfront.
Internal review -- has at least one colleague outside the commissioning team read the ToR? Fresh eyes catch ambiguity you cannot see.
The inception report is your insurance
In India's development sector, the inception report is routinely skipped or treated as a formality. Do not let this happen. Require it. Read it carefully. Flag misalignment. This 3-page document saves more money than any other quality gate in the evaluation process. If the researcher's understanding of your questions does not match yours, catch it here -- not in the draft report.
Your Pre-Send Checklist
Run your ToR through each check. Flag issues before sending.
e.g., "State Director, Rajasthan -- will decide whether to continue cluster model in April 2027"
Monsoon, exams, festivals, elections -- anything that blocks fieldwork
Name and their perspective (e.g., "Priya -- programme lead, will check operational feasibility")
Saved
Self-check
Your ToR requires fieldwork in rural Assam during July-August. A colleague flags this. Why?
School exams are happening
Monsoon flooding -- many rural areas in Assam become inaccessible July-August
It conflicts with Durga Puja
Researchers are unavailable in summer
Correct. Brahmaputra basin flooding peaks July-August. Rural Assam districts become physically inaccessible. This is a classic calendar-check failure. Shift fieldwork to October-November (post-monsoon, pre-harvest) or February-March (dry season).
Capstone
Your Polished ToR + Costing Sheet
You have completed all four modules. Click Build my brief to compile your answers into a ready-to-send Terms of Reference document.
Terms of Reference -- Draft
Click "Build my brief" to pull your module answers into a single ToR document. Edit directly in the box afterwards if needed.
Your ToR will appear here when you click "Build my brief".
It pulls from your answers in Modules 1-4. Empty fields show as placeholders.