Scope of Work (SOW) Final Evaluation
Community-based Disaster Management and Local Government Capacity Building in West Sumatra
1) Programme to be Evaluated:
Programme Title: Community-based Disaster Management and Local
Government Capacity Building in West Sumatra
Location: West Sumatra (Agam district and Padang city), Indonesia
Funded by: DIPECHO
Implementation:
Total budget amount: EUR
Co-financing amount: EUR
Partner: Jemari Sakato
Period to be evaluated: 1 July 2010 – 30 September 2011
Evaluation consultancy:
Time period: The evaluation is scheduled to take place at the end of September.
To apply: Please submit a CV, cover letter outlining experience, fee, availability, technical knowledge/experience and a copy of a previous evaluation by 10 August 2011. Please apply online at www.mercycorps.org/jobs
2) Purpose of the Evaluation
This will be a final evaluation of Mercy Corps’ Community-based Disaster Management and Local Government Capacity Building in West Sumatra project. The purpose of conducting this external evaluation is to provide a means of accountability to the donor, project beneficiaries and stakeholders by assessing the quality and impact of the programme. Furthermore, the final evaluation will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the programme to ensure lessons learned are captured for developing future DRR programmes in West Sumatra.
The final evaluation will provide an assessment of the following: 1) relevance & quality of design. ; 2) efficiency of implementation; 3) effectiveness
to date; 4) potential impact; 5) potential sustainability 6) lessons learned and potential for replicability
- Measure effectiveness- did the Project meet the objectives, specific results and targets?
- Measure efficiency- was Mercy Corps able to implement the project within the time-frame and gain support of local stakeholders
- Measure relevancy of project- did the Project correctly address the identified needs and is it in line with recommendations of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA)?
- Measure replicability of the action. Can the action be replicate in other part of the country without significant changes in the method, investment, and material employed?
- Assess potential impact of the project by analysing if key actions at community level are replicable and scalable to higher levels
- Evaluate sustainability of the Project – Which component of the Project is likely to continue after the end of the DIPECHO funding and which part is not?
- Identify good practices and lessons learnt which can be used as for improving and strengthening risk reduction initiatives through Mercy Corps programmes in Indonesia
2) Background:
Indonesia’s propensity for natural hazards is dramatic and well-documented. Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, landslides, flooding, droughts, and storm surges all wreak havoc on populations and economies. The effects of climate change are exacerbating many of these perennial hazards. Changes in rainfall
patterns are affecting food security and drinking water; storms and other weather patterns are becoming more severe; sea level rise is a new threat putting lives and livelihoods at risk in coastal communities. For Indonesia to effectively face these challenges a comprehensive national policy approach must be integrated with local, context-driven initiatives rooted in communities and their governments.
Currently, despite the broad awareness of hazard threats, the positive steps taken by the Government of Indonesia in promoting disaster management as one of the national priorities and enshrining it in Disaster Management Law no. 24/2007, and the various frameworks propagated regionally by ASEAN, the Asian Ministerial Conference, and others, there are many vulnerable communities that have no basic preparedness measures in place.
In order to respond to the above needs, Mercy Corps is implementing the 18 month, Community-based Disaster Management and Local Government Capacity Building in West Sumatra project with the following specific objective:
To increase resilience and reduce vulnerability in 8 local communities, 2 Badan Penanggulangan Bencana Daerah (BPBD) agencies, and 12 schools through strategies and capacity building that enable them to better prepare for, mitigate and respond to natural disasters.
The project has the following 5 results:
1) Eight communities have increased knowledge and skills to reduce their vulnerability through training and participatory planning. HFA 2, 3, 5
2) 40 DPT members proactively promote preparedness within and beyond their communities, and advocate to the government their preparedness needs. HFA 1, 3, 5
3) Two district Disaster Management Agencies/BPBD have been trained and have developed Standard Operating Procedures and contingency plans per the Disaster Management Law Number 24, 2007 HFA 1, 3, 5
4) Disaster Management Agencies/BPBD from 4 other districts in the province, and from the West Sumatra provincial Disaster Management Agency, learn about the P3DM approach to DRR through cross-learning HFA 1, 3, 5
5) Twelve School Disaster Preparedness Teams (SDPTs) are established and trained in twelve schools in Padang City and Agam District HFA 3, 5
3) Evaluation questions
Relevance & quality of design
- Did the project proposal conform to the goals of the programme?
- Were the project results in line with the HFA?
- How appropriate was the project in responding to local needs?
- Were project risks properly assessed?
Efficiency of implementation
- Were all services/activities (trainings, meetings, capacity building, workshops) delivered in a timely manner?
- Were services/activities of an acceptable quality?
- Was the methodology of implementation the right one under the circumstances?
- Did Mercy Corps get good cooperation from relevant local government authorities?
- What was local government’s assessment of this intervention?
- What was the level of local community contribution to the project?
- Did the NGO/agency get good cooperation from relevant local leaders?
Effectiveness
- Did the activities listed in the proposal result in total achievement of the specific objectives and attainment of results?
- Were there any non-planned effects and were these good or bad?
- Were the trainings, awareness building and community mobilisation activities effective and appropriate for that environment?
Impact to date
- To what extent have beneficiaries, benefited from the project activities and results? Has the project changed their lives in any meaningful way?
- To what extent have local government institutions benefited from the activities and results?
- Has the project increased or decreased dependency on outside intervention?
Potential sustainability
- To what extent can the results be expected to be sustainable over the longer term?
- What characteristics make the results sustainable or unsustainable?
- Do the local government authorities fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
- Do the local community leaders fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
- To what extent has the project strengthened the capacities of local government and local community structures?
- To what extent are the people themselves contributing to the sustainability of the initiatives?
Replicability and lessons learned
- Based on the response above, what aspect of the project should be considered for replication?
- Based on the responses above, what are the key lessons of the project?
4) Evaluation Methods
· Review documentation and secondary data – The evaluator will assess project records and reports as well as the results of prior surveys carried out with beneficiaries, including the project baseline result.
· Site visits and observations – The evaluator will visit various communities where the project has implemented activities
· Semi-structured stakeholder interviews & focus groups – The evaluator will prepare a semi-structure questionnaire, and facilitate focus group discussions with beneficiaries, and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, such as the representatives from the local government, DPT, SDPT members, final beneficiaries
· KAP survey in 12 schools - Replication of baseline survey with a sample of select beneficiary groups to measure changes in outcome indicators related to KAP. This will be provided to the consultant. The consultant is expected to organise this process.
· Staff interviews – Evaluators will discuss the project with key programme staff, including partner staff.
5) Key Deliverables
Copies of the raw data files from data collection.A presentation of the Evaluator’s initial findings to project staff and senior management in Padang Final evaluation report submitted to Mercy Corps Indonesia management.
6) Procedures: Schedule and Logistics
Day 1-2 Review documentation, materials etc
Day 3 Prepare drafts of tools for methodology- to be reviewed by field team
Day 4 Travel to Padang and meet project team, briefings, finalise tools, training to staff
Day 5 Collect data/information
Day 6 Collect data/information
Day 7 Collect data/information
Day 8 Collect data/information
Day 9 -10 Review the data
Day 11 Report write- up
Day 12 Report write-up
Day 13 Report write-up
Day 14 Presentation of draft report for comments
Day 15 Report writing
Day 16 Final report produced and sent to MC management
11) Qualifications and experience
· Fluency in English, and good working knowledge in Bahasa
· Technical knowledge on DME, preferable also on Disaster Risk Reduction projects
· Minimum of 5 years previous M&E experience
· Previous experience working in Indonesia, preferably in West Sumatra
· Preferred experience of working on DIPECHO funded programmes
· Excellent writing skills- evidence will be required of previous work
· Cultural sensitivity
· Facilitation skills
12) Reports to:
· The consultant will report to Mercy Corps’ Project Manager and Director of Programmes.
No comments:
Post a Comment