TERMS OF REFERENCE
FINAL EVALUATIONOF “POYEK TIGA DESA” (PROTIDES)
Increase Capacity Kebonarum
Parish and Community Capacity to Plan Preparedness and Recovery from Merapi
Eruption” or known as Protides
March 2013
A. Background
The Project of “Increase Capacity Kebonarum Parish
and Community Capacity to Plan Preparedness and Recovery from Merapi Eruption”
or known as Protides is a continuation of the EA 19/2011 project. PROTIDES
project is part of the activities implemented by KARINA-KAS as an effort to
assist survivors of the Merapi Eruption 2010. The focuses of this project are
Disaster Risk Reduction issues, Livelihood recovery for vulnerable communities
and clean water for the assisted areas.
Locations of the project are Talun, Tegalmulyo, and
Sidorejo Villages of Kemalang Sub-district at Klaten Regency. Those villages
are within Kebonarum Parish area. In this project, KARINA-KAS works hand in
hand with PWNU-DIY (Pengurus Wilayah Nahdatul Ulama – Daerah Istimewa
Yogyakarta), and Kebonarum Parish. Meanwhile, in the community level,
KARINA-KAS encourages active participation from TSD (disaster preparedness team
at village level) and local government in each area.
The methodology of this project was discussion and
consultation with local government, TSD team, Leader of Community and
Representative of Community. In Talun, Tegalmulyo and Sidorejo Villages the
process of disseminating information was held on January 7, 11 and 12, 2012.
The process of disseminating information was continued by Participatory
Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA) process. Community organizers from KARINA-KAS
conducted PDRA with TSD team from three villages, local government, community
and local facilitators. Latter on, the result of PDRA was used as references to
develop community action plans (CAPs). The CAPs wereverified by
experts, such as from livelihood consultant and clean water engineer.
To increase the capacity at community level,
KARINA-KAS also provided Introduction to DRR and PDRA trainings for local
facilitators, representatives of TSD in three villages, representatives of
PWNU-DIY and the PROTIDES team. The trainings were held on 21-22 and 26-28
March 2012 at the meeting room of KARINA-KAS.
Since this time Karina Kas
in consultation with key target groups have continued with support to the
implementation of the CAPs in the form of water, livelihoods strengthening and
capacity building interventions. The project ends March 31st 2013.
B. Goal
The Goal of the final
evaluation of the Increase Capacity Kebonarum Parish and Community Capacity to
Plan Preparedness and Recovery from Merapi Eruption” or known as Protides”
program is to produce a concise evaluation report of the project, spelling out
evaluation results and impacts, and lessons learnt, otherwise to see the
efficiency, effectiveness, relevancy, impact and sustainability) from this
program to community. The evaluation report is to bring out the performance of
the project, its relevance and its success. The evaluation should look at the
project’s contribution to capacity development and achievement of this project
goal within the context of sustainable development, as well as the impact of
Karina/Karina-KAS intervention in the dioceses/community in general.
Objectives
The objective of the
evaluation is to draw lessons from the Increase Capacity Kebonarum Parish and
Community Capacity to Plan Preparedness and Recovery from Merapi Eruption” or
known as Protides Program processes, both positive and negative. The evaluation
aims to assess efficiency, effectiveness, relevancy, impact and sustainability
of the project implementation. The evaluation will also identify the
main stakeholders of the project and their roles during project implementation.
And it is expected that the result of final evaluation would give additional
information and recommendation to the future program, internal policies of
Karina-KASand policies related to partnership:
· Did the project activities address real needs and basedon available local
resources of the 3 communities/villages and Kebonarum Parish?How were the project activites relevant to the communities?
· Was there an integration and linkage between project activities
implemented in the grand design of the project?Please explain based on your findings!
· Was there any connection between project
activities done by TSD and Parish team?How was
the connection can be explained as efforts to support achievement of the
project goal?
· Were the project activities efficiently implemented; did the resources allocation
reflect on the result/achievement of the projectgoal?Based on your findings please explain how efficient was the project
implementation!
· Is the project sustainable and will be benefit of the communities after
Karina-KAS phase out?
· Are the communities accompanied able to effectively manage their
activities in disaster preparedness, cleaning water and livelyhood after Merapi eruption?Based on your findings please explain how effective was the management
of project implementation!
· Were the activities effectively planned and implemented
in order to achieve a resilient community?Through the activities
implemented, do the communities meet their criteriasto become a resilient
community in facing disaster?
· Did the project intervention positively impact on other targeted
group/people? Please pull out their answers to how the
interventions impacted!
· Was the gender balance sufficiently and qualitatively addressedin implementing this
project?Please explain based on your findings.
· Did the coordination between key stakeholders (Karina-KAS,
PWNU-DIY, Karina-KWI, Caritas Member Organisations/donors) efficiently and
effectively support success of theproject implementation?If yes, how does each of them gives support for the success?
· Did the
cooperation between KARINAKAS and PWNU-DIY in implementing “Protides” Project
promote the spirit of inter-religious dialogue? How was the spirit perceived by
the communities?
· Do the involvement of the partners at the implementation level benefit
of the communities accompanied?If yes, how are
their supported reasons/findings?
C. Methodology
Methodology: The evaluation will
assess on how Karina-Kas implemented the project and planned activities to
build the capacities of served communities and strengthen the internal and
external networking at the sub-district level & local church community. The
evaluation will be done by comparing the implemented project with the planned
activities and project achievements. Data and information collection found in
the fields and in the project documents must be quantitatively analysed. In addition, assessment on
the available baseline data in comparison with the project progress must be
analysed in order to provide objective assessment on the project
achievements. If there is no available baseline data needed, comparison with
other villages nearby which don’t implement the project may be applied.
This methodology is expected
to apply participatory evaluation taking into consideration the stakeholder
engagement (staff, management, partners, parish, communities and donors) in
developing tools, implementation, consolidation of findings, and analysis.
The
following techniques are to enable the external evaluator to collect and
analyze relevant information:
· Document study:Information on project implementation will be collected from various
reportsand baseline data/information.
· Field observation:Apart being collected through document study, information on project
implementation dynamics also will be enriched through field visits to directly
observe project.
· Discussion and interview:During field visits, the external evaluator will
conduct interviews and discussions with diocesan caritas core teams and its
accompanied communities. The discussions will be focused mainly on project
implementation and important issues related to project implementation.
1. Duration and Timeline of evaluation
Begining of march to end of
march 2013
E. The External Evaluator:
Requirements:
· Having adequate knowledge on Caritas and its networking’s work
· Minimum of 5 years work experience in the field of development specially
for DRR
· Experience in project evaluation
· Experience in project development processes associated with sustainable
development issues
· Extensive experience in project development, implementation and
management (direct project management experience is preferable) at national
level
· Must have a good record of scholarly research and publications
· Excellent knowledge of the English Language with exceptional writing,
presentation and communication skills; Full computer literacy
Tasks and responsibilities:
1. Project objectives: Assess the extent to which the project’s principle
objective and intermediate objectives (as listed in the log frame) are met.
2. Project design:
· Assess whether the different project sectors and activities proposed to
achieve the objective were appropriate, feasible and responded to contextual,
institutional and regulatory settings of the project.
· Assess linkages between project components and other interventions
within the sector and the definition of clear and appropriate management
arrangements at the design stage.
3. Stakeholder consultation and participation: Assess information
dissemination, consultation, and stakeholder participation in project
implementation. In particular:
· Assess the involvement of diocese in project implementation and the
extent of donors support to the project.
· Assess the diocesan caritas’ use/establishment of electronic information
technologies to support implementation, participation and other project activities.
· Assess the establishment of partnerships and collaborative relationships
developed by the project
4. Technical and management capacity of Karina: Assess technical and
management capacities associated with the project and their role in project development,
management and achievements
5. Monitoring during the project: Assess whether there have been adequate
periodic monitoring of activities during implementation to establish the extent
to which inputs, work schedules, other required actions and outputs were
proceeding according to plan. Assess elements that indicate adaptive management
such as comprehensive and realistic work plans routinely developed that reflect
on changes in management arrangements to enhance implementation.
6. Suggest ways in which lessons and experiences coming out of the project
can contribute to the design and implementation of future projects.
7. Submit the evaluation report in timely manner
Structure of evaluation
report:
a. Executive
summary
b. Introduction
c. The project
and its development context
d. Findings
and Conclusions
4.1 Project formulation
4.2 Implementation
4.3 Results
e. Recommendations
f. Lessons
learned
g. Annexes
F. Implementation arrangements
· The draft and final evaluation report shall be sent to Karina by Mid
April 2013 For comments prior to its finalization.
· Logistical support required is to be included in the External Evaluator
proposa
Application, CV, proposal and contact details should be
submitted by e-mail to: eva@karina.or.idor sdmkarina@gmail.com at the latest on 28February 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment