Final Evaluation of Disaster Resilience Program

Deadline to apply:May 22nd, 2015

Required: Final Evaluation Consultant

Mercy Corps is looking for a Consultant to carry out the Final

Evaluation of the Disaster Resilience Initiative for Vulnerable

Communities (DRIVE-C) programme. Please find below the Scope of

Work. If you are interested, please submit your cover letter,

CV with relevant experiences and sample of previous work

through the Mercy Corps website no later than COB on 22nd May

2015. Please indicate your daily rate to carry out the

evaluation and a rough idea on how you will achieve the

objective of the evaluation in your cover letter. Only

shortlisted candidate(s) will be contacted for interviews.

Program Description

Program Title: Disaster Resilience Initiative for Vulnerable

Communities (DRIVE-C)

Program Sites: DKI Jakarta, Banten, and West Java Provinces

Implementation Period: 1 January 2013 – 30 June 2015

Funded by: A private foundation

Program Goal

To improve the resilience of urban and peri-urban textile

worker communities vulnerable to hazards through strengthening

the capacity of local communities, local government, and

private sector actors to reduce risks.

Background

Mercy Corps considers disaster risk reduction programming of

particular strategic importance as Indonesia is a country that

faces extremes in quantity and severity of hazards and

disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes,

landslides, flooding, droughts, and storm surges. Indonesia’s

challenge to manage urban and peri-urban development in

disaster prone areas is complex. Urban and peri-urban areas

generally are extensively built up, exposing the communities to

greater risk when a disaster happens. The complexity is both

economic and social, as well as the environmental

considerations which any area would be exposed to during and

following a disaster. In an attempt to mitigate some of this

risk, the community should have an understanding and the

capacity in terms of knowledge, skill, and organizational

ability to anticipate the disaster risk and thus reduce their

vulnerability to it. In addition, although the ultimate

responsibility should lie with the government, strong linkages

between the authorities and the vulnerable communities, civil

society and private sector are critical in supporting any DRR

approaches.

One of Mercy Corps Indonesia’s programs, Disaster Resilience

Initiative for Vulnerable Communities (DRIVE-C) Program that

focuses on the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change

Adaptation (CCA), has been promoting disaster risk reduction to

textile workers community in urban and peri-urban areas.

DRIVE-C Program goal aims to improve resilience of the

population’s vulnerability to hazards through strengthening the

capacity of local communities, local government, and private

sector actors. The program has been designed to meet three

objectives over a 2-year implementation timeframe:

• Objective 1: Improve community capacity for practicing DRR
  
  program
  

Performance of objective 1 depended on achievement of 3

outputs, including:

Output 1.1: Disaster preparedness team (DPT) establishment

Output 1.2: Vulnerability and capacity assessment conducted by

DPT

Output 1.3: Local action plan conducted by DPT

• Objective 2: Assist community in developing, prioritizing
  
  and implementing relevant DRR pilot projects based on the local
  
  action plan
  

Objective 2 will be achieved through implementation of3

outputs, including:

Output 2.1: Pilot project determination based on local action

plan

Output 2.2: Pilot project budget plan development

Output 2.3: Pilot project implementation

• Objective 3: Improve community capacity in accessing
  
  external funding to support their action plan
  

Performance of objective 3 depended on achievement of 2

outputs, including:

Output 3.1: Partnership development between community,

government, and private sector

Output 3.2: Increased community capacity for dissemination of

DRR best practice document

Purpose of Final Evaluation

The program was designed to have two evaluations, mid-term and

final. . The mid-term evaluation was undertaken in August 2014

and program activities are now nearing completion. Thus the

final evaluation is now required to examine activities against

objectives and offer findings and recommendations for program

improvement (for a potential phase II). In addition, there is

additional value added from this evaluation as findings and

recommendations can also be applied to strategies and

approaches of other complimentary DRR projects to ensure

efficient, aligned and effective programming across the wider

Mercy Corps Indonesia portfolio.

Scope of Evaluation

The final evaluation will cover a set of key topics across the

DRIVE-C program namely relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency

as well as evaluating sustainability and impact as follows:

1 Relevance Assessment

• Assess the relevance of program approach and strategy in
  
  producing outputs, outcomes, and achieving the goal to improve
  
  resilience of urban and peri-urban community.
  


• Analyze whether the technical assistance and project’s
  
  community based approach addresses the needs and demands of the
  
  beneficiaries.
  


• Assess the effect and relevance of technical assistance
  
  (capacity building through trainings and workshops) and of the
  
  identified pilot projects for the community members.
  

1 Effectiveness Assessment

• Evaluate achievement of outputs based on set of program
  
  indicators.
  


• Evaluate effectiveness of assessment to identify
  
  appropriate target geographical area and beneficiary groups.
  


• Assess the performance of the project so far with
  
  particular reference to qualitative and quantitative
  
  achievements of outputs and targets as defined in the program
  
  documents and work-plans.
  

1 Efficiency Assessment

• Identify factors and constraints which have affected the
  
  efficiency of the logical sequence of program implementation
  
  including technical, managerial and overall program approach.
  
  In addition considering any unforeseen external factors.
  


• Assess the qualitative and quantitative aspects of
  
  management and other inputs (such as equipment, monitoring and
  
  review, technical assistance and budgetary inputs) employed by
  
  the program for the achievement of outputs and targets.
  


• Assess the timeline and quality of the reporting followed
  
  by the program.
  

1 Sustainability and Impact

• Assess preliminary indications whether the program results
  
  are likely to be sustainable beyond the program implementation
  
  period (both at the community and government level), and
  
  provide recommendations for strengthening sustainability.
  


• Provide success stories and/or key achievements supported
  
  by evidence and explanation..
  


• Provide recommendations for design, planning, and
  
  implementation of future DRR program based on a summary of
  
  relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency assessments.
  


• Evaluate the degree of actor representation and stakeholder
  
  participation (including beneficiaries, government and private
  
  sector) in the program implementation process with a view to
  
  analyzing and anticipating continued support to ensure
  
  sustainability of the program beyond the current phase.
  

Evaluation Methods

Key Focus

Key Questions

Data Collection Methods

Relevance Assessment

Application of resilience, disaster risk reduction, and

community development approaches evident through program

outcome, output, and key activities

1 How the program strategy and approach has been applied based

on the program design?

• In-depth interviews with program team
  


• Content analysis from program documents (program narrative,
  
  agreement, log-frame, reports, and other relevant document)
  


• Field observation
  


• In-depth interview and/or focus group discussion (FGD) with
  
  beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders
  

1 What are contributions of the achieved outcomes and outputs

to disaster risk reduction at community level?

Effectiveness Assessment

Justification of substance/material utilization for each

activity to produce the output, including working area

selection criteria, training/workshop theme/topic, and

partnership development

1 How effective was the process to select working area and

targeted beneficiaries?

• Content analysis from program reports
  


• Field observation
  


• In-depth interview and/or focus group discussion (FGD) with
  
  beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders
  

1 How effective were the tools, techniques and approaches used

during the program – based on degree of participation and

demonstrated knowledge and skill in practicing DRR (such as

development and use of local action plan) 2 How have

communication and coordination among the program management

team, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders been conducted and

maintained?(Including information sharing, role division, and

satisfaction level among stakeholders)

Efficiency Assessment

Resource utilization for activity implementation

1 How efficient was resource management for implementing

program activities? (Including human resource, budget, assets,

scheduling)

• Content analysis from program reports
  


• In-depth interviews with program team
  

Sustainability and Impact

Findings, feedback, and suggestions for program

sustainability/replication in resilience and disaster risk

reduction based on best practices and lesson learned

1 What interesting stories can be gathered from the program

implementation process? 2 What changes have been encountered at

community level as a result of the project implementation? Can

the changes be identified as opportunities for sustainability?

3 How did engagement in DRIVE C program optimize the role of

each stakeholder in the program and how sustainable is that

engagement following the end of the current program?

• Content analysis from program reports
  


• In-depth interviews with program team
  


• In-depth interview and/or focus group discussion (FGD) with
  
  beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders
  

Evaluation Work-plan

The final evaluation would be start on June 1st, 2015 and

should be completed in 22 working days with detail as follows:

Activity & Deliverable

Consultant Days

Design and Planning

Discussion with Program Team & Desk Study

2 days

Tools designed and finalized

1 days

Implementation

Data collection & management

7 days

Analysis

3 days

Reporting

Report writing & editing

5 days

Draft Report submitted

1 days

Report Finalized

3 days

Total Days

22 days

Consultant Description

1 Consultant Objectives

DRIVE-C Program seeks a professional consultant to conduct the

final evaluation of the program independently. In addition to

measuring the program achievements, the final evaluation will

also highlight issues and challenges affecting effective and

efficient implementation of activities to achieve program

outputs, their contribution to program outcomes and

contribution to the program goal.

The consultant is responsible for:

1 Developing detailed work-plan and arranging every evaluation

activity independently. 2 Performing evaluation process based

on described evaluation methodology in SOW during the set

time-frame. 3 Reporting the evaluation results based on

mutually agreed format which meets Mercy Corps minimum

standards. 4 Consultant Qualifications

The consultant must have a strong record in conducting

evaluations, particularly in Disaster Risk Reduction and

Climate Change Adaptation issues. The consultant should have

excellent knowledge of monitoring and evaluation in theory and

practice. Good understanding of disaster risk reduction and of

participatory processes is required. The consultant should have

the following skills and competencies:

1 Demonstrable experience of producing high quality and

credible evaluations (we require sample or summary of previous

evaluation project). 2 Experience working with/evaluating NGO

work. 3 Experience knowledge in Disaster Risk Reduction,

(ideally in urban contexts), participatory processes, and

stakeholder engagement. 4 Ability to write concisely, analyze

data and information precisely, and present any key findings in

a well-defined and well-articulated structure. 5 Excellent

writing and presentation skills in English.

Deliverable

The consultant should develop a very clear and simple

evaluation report. The main content of the report should not

exceed 20 pages, including executive summary and

recommendations. Technical explanation should be comprised in

appendices, including lists of informants, data, and other

supporting information. The information should have relevance

to the report’s analysis, findings, and conclusion.

The consultant should explain the evaluation methodology

clearly and how the methodology is applied to the analysis

through relevant data and information. The assessment of

program achievements should be justified in a logical framework

and evidence in order to support the recommendations. The

recommendations should include details on how to implement in

the next program phase. The report is expected to be relevant

for internal discussion and learning and external discussion

with all stakeholders, including the beneficiaries and local

government.

The list of report contents are:

1 Cover page 2 List of Acronyms 3 Table of Contents 4 Executive

Summary 5 Brief of program description, Purpose of the

evaluation, and Evaluation Methodology 6 Synthesis and Result:

program relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact of program

activities, with recommendations for sustainability 7

Recommendation and Lessons learned: Assessment of attainment of

indicators, operational and developmental lessons 8 Annexes:

TOR, Work plan, List of people interviewed, List of documents

reviewed

Budget

Item

Quantity

Cost per Unit (€)

Total Costs (€)

Consultant Fee

22 days

300

6,600

International Flight

1 round trip

1,300

1,300

Expenses for Data Collection Activities

Per Diem for Lodging & Local Transport

(May 31 to June 15)

15 days

150

2,250

Per Diem for Meals

15 days

50

750

Meeting/Focus Group Discussion supplies

9 events

150

1,350

Communication

1 package

50

50

Office supplies (document copy & print)

1 unit

50

50

Total Costs

12,350