Greater Jakarta Project-Mid Term Review Consultant

Location of work: North Jakarta branch, DKI Jakarta chapter, Bogor branch, Depok branch and West Java chapter, PMI NHQ and Amcross

TERM OF REFERENCE
Greater Jakarta Project-Mid Term Review Consultant
April 2014

*I. **Back ground and objective of projects*

The increasing global temperature and extreme weather phenomenon have
inflicted more frequent disasters which put community especially vulnerable
people at risk, especially in a mega city like Jakarta, Indonesia. The
seasonal rainfall extremes and the rise of sea level that leads to flooding
have often contributed to the disaster-related outbreaks, the occurrence of
waterborne disease or serious health problems.

The greater Jakarta metropolitan area is comprised of 5 neighboring
cities known as JABODETABEK (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tanggerang and Bekasi) and
are traversed by 13 rivers including the largest river called Ciliwung
which contribute to this delta system and expose populations to flooding
and tidal surge risks. The increasing magnitude and frequency of the
flooding has caused socio-economic hardship and loss and environment
damage, especially in the lower delta areas, including North Jakarta and
other areas along the river basin such as Bogor and Depok. A number of
factors, including the reckless habit of residents throwing garbage into
the river, poor solid waste management and ineffective municipal planning,
coordination and policies have exacerbated the situation.
Consequently, watershed
flooding and a number of other water related issues like quality have led
to a scarcity of potable water supply needed by the communities and
industries.

In order to contribute in resolving the problem above and improve the
affected community condition, the Greater Jakarta Urban Disaster Risk
Reduction Project aim to draw the community representative involvement
through the village-level Community Disaster Management Committees (CDMC)
to increase the community participation and ownership in ICBRR (Integrated
Community-Based Risk Reduction); to strengthen the PMI relationship with
the communities, other civil society groups, other institutions and local
government to address flood risks and other objectives, as called for in
the proposal design, such as adapting and strengthening the ICBRR project
approach and envisaged results; and to better dovetail/overlap the project
strategy with the government disaster response system that will
contribute greater
synergy of effort to such a significant and contemporary disaster risk
reduction issue, to better document the institutional learning,
particularly in the more complex urban operating environment, so as to
develop better approaches that involve a critical mass of stakeholders to
ensure the project approach is effective and appropriate, taking into
consideration the variations and complexities which present themselves in
an urban environment; being able to achieve this should also better inform
DM managers formally adapt and revise existing ICBRR approaches used in
rural and peri-urban settings to more complex mega city operating
environments ( e.g how the VCA conducted, the importance of drawing in more
stakeholders, time considerations, demographic compositions, more formal
partnerships etc).

*The project goal and outcomes* are outlined below:

Project goal: To reduce deaths, injuries, and socio-economic impacts caused
by climate change related disasters and environmental degradation in
greater Jakarta areas.

Strategic Objective: To strengthen urban communities' resilience to
potential disaster risks and impacts posed by climate change and
environmental degradation through capacity building in PMI and its linkage
with government and private sector as well as in the targeted communities.

Outcome 1: The capacity of PMI in technical and program management of
integrated urban Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Risk Management
(CRM) is increased.

Outcome 2: Established coordination and collaboration with between PMI and
Government (Dinas Kebersihan Kota-Sanitation Department), Academic, and
Private sectors in implementing urban community based DRR, CRM, and Green &
Clean promotion.

Outcome 3: The capacities of targeted communities are increased in
implementing ICBRR approaches to raise community knowledge, awareness, and
friendly practices in DRR, CRM and Environmental Health.

*Activities and interventions proposed *

The activities are implemented through PMI, using the ICBRR model. ARC and
PMI selected communities from three districts in Greater Jakarta namely
North Jakarta, Bogor and Depok for project participation based on their
vulnerability to climate risk and lack of resiliency. The Greater Jakarta
Urban DRR Project, through its close work with communities, local
government entities, and a local university (ITB), also conforms to the
ARC's International Service Development (ISD) strategic goal of working
closely with key stakeholders. PMI and ARC have considered both civil work
and spatial issues in considering the strategy and associated set of
activities for this program - especially in the context of what's affecting
populations living within the Ciliwung River Basin.

Minor structural solutions, such as river embankment reinforcement,
improved drainage, and consideration of other flood defenses is being given
priority. Because of the time and resource limitations and work being
undertaken by the GOI, such structural interventions comprise only a small
part of the overall program as part of the flood risk reduction strategy.
Greater attention and emphasis with this program will be focused on the
non-structural solutions such as flood warning systems improved
community-based preparedness, evacuation planning and coordinated recovery
procedures for communities and populations which are already at risk of
flood disasters. These non-structural interventions can be implemented
within the confines of this program, such activities, like re-greening of
urban areas, improved drainage, solid waste management and community
preparedness, explained below, will better enable continued occupation of
flood risk areas while minimizing the expected damage from flooding.

*Project scope*

The project geographic scope covered three districts in two provinces,
Jakarta and West Java namely Bogor, Depok and North Jakarta and intended to
reach 36,549 direct beneficiaries and 553,535 indirect beneficiaries. The
project intervention covers 11 villages, as follow:

*Province*

*District*

*Sub District*

*Village*

West Java

Bogor

Cibinong

Karadenan

Sukahati

Pondog Rajeg

Bojong Gede

Waringin Jaya

Bojong Baru

Depok

Beji

Pondok Cina

Kemiri Muka

Sukma Jaya

Tirta jaya

DKI Jakarta

Jakarta Utara

Pademangan

Ancol (RW 01/02)

Pademangan barat (RW 13)

Penjaringan

Penjaringan (RW 04/05)

*II. **Expected scope of work*

The consultant will be responsible as team leader of mid term review of the
Greater Jakarta Project currently being implemented in North Jakarta, Depok
and Bogor. The consultant will assess the progress and challenges faced in
the implementation process and provide recommendations for improving the
design and content of the project to better understand the context and
address urban risk and reflect the urban resilience approach of the ARC and
strategic priorities of PMI. The consultant will work closely with ARC HQ
and Regional technical advisor, ARC and PMI program team as team members to
conduct the review.

*Purpose of Review*

To ensure that project activities in the field are being implemented for
the maximum benefit of the people we are trying to serve. Project reviews
are expected to result in necessary changes to projects, within its
activities, training methodologies, curricula, staffing, geographic scope,
budget, partnership issues, etc and to inform the needs of No Cost
Extension proposal for the project.

*Objectives of Review*

- To measure the project performance in terms of relevance, time,
budget and scope .

- To assess major factors of projects successes as well as
challenges that contribute to the variance of the achievements.

- To obtain inputs and recommendation to make adjustments to the
project implementation in terms of timing, approaches and strategies, and
product and project scopes (including project design)

*Review criteria and questions*

Reviews may consider many things, but should include at least three broad
areas:

Key criteria and sub-questions:

*Criteria*

*Main Review questions*

*Sub-questions*

*(to provide guidance)*

*Relevance*

*1. **How appropriate was project design?*

1.1 Whether the project's approach and key activities (such as community
mobilizations, training programs, public awareness rising, IEC
interventions, mitigation etc.) are relevant, appropriate and effective in
the evolving context?

1.2 What extra objectives/interventions/activities should be
added/revised in the remaining project period (with possible NCE) to make
it more relevant and effective?

*Timeliness (effectiveness)*

*2. **How well were project activities planned and implemented? *

2.1 Were activities implemented as planned?

2.2 What, if anything could have been done to speed up implementation?

2.3 What are key challenges, problems and gaps in implementing the key
activities and how these are being addressed?

*Coordination*

*3. **How well did AmCross coordinate with project stakeholders?*

3.1 Was the division of work, roles and responsibilities between the
partners clear and appropriate?

3.2 What were the challenges and successes of the relationships? And how
this can be further strengthen?

*Quality*

*4. **How did actual project coverage compare to expectations and
identified needs? *

4.1 Were quality standards defined, and did activities achieve high
levels of quality in implementation?

4.2 Were there any glaring inequities between program beneficiaries and
other members of the surrounding community who were not included in the
program? Would a different definition of intended beneficiaries have had
different results?

4.3 Did beneficiaries--in general or for specific groups (such as the
elderly or disabled)--encounter any difficulties accessing the program?

4.4 Were there any established criteria for beneficiary selection and to
what extent were they followed if any?

4.5 Is there a right balance between the cost and quality of the
activities? Is current level of funding appropriate and efficient for
achieving project goal? What are the key reasons for underspent and delay
in interventions, how these can be addressed in remaining project duration?

*Sustainability*

*5. *

5.1 What is most appropriate sustainability plan? Should some project
elements be supported beyond the normal LOP and in which case, what would
be the most appropriate strategy for support?

*The scope of work* in detail is as follows:

1. To provide a detail assessment of project implementation in three
targeted branches (North Jakarta, Depok, and Bogor), within two provinces
(DKI Jakarta and West Java) including its project management both in
Amcross and PMI, program implementation in each level, project strategy and
its approach. i.e. a comparison performance against plan, PMI personnel
understanding on project objectives, components, strategy, activites, and
assumptions required for success.

2. To provide recommendations for improving the design and content of
the project to better address the urban context and risk and reflect the
urban resilience approach of the ARC and strategic priorities of PMI.

3. Based on experience to date, to look at issues which need
to be given
additional consideration to include, which may vary within the more
complex urban operating environment (e.g revision of specific activity
approaches, such as how the VCA conducted and what it includes; the
importance of drawing in more stakeholders; time considerations that affect
urban populations, effective means/methods towards behavior
changes,demographic compositions; the need to pull in additional
support via more
formal partnerships etc)

4. To look at how ARC and PMI have documented the experience in order
to better inform their program approach to working in major
metropolitan/urban operating environments and what they need to do to
improve that documentation process in the future.

5. To make recommendations for redesigning the project and improving
the program strategy and approach for potential no cost extension based on
midterm review findings and recommendation.

6. To assess the appropriateness of current geographical focus in
three branches in terms of effectiveness of the program interventions and
opportunities to achieve better results.

7. To assess and make recommendations for PMI and ARC to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the current project management approach and
the technical support being provided to the project.

8. To facilitate the process of discussions, meetings and workshop on
midterm review process as required

*Methodologies*

The review methods will use qualitative methods of data collection which
will cover all required information to ensure that the findings are
objective and reliable. Therefore, the methods would include the following:

*Method*

*Critical element of Project review process*

*Desk review*

- Analysis of documentation for the project(s) under review: proposal,
amendment (s), recent QPRs, previous evaluations, TA mission reports, other
reports
- Review of planning processes, including setting of targets and ability
to meet them; accomplishments and future plans must be reviewed as well
- Analysis of budgets at the level under review (e.g. overall sector,
project, specific activity, branch or chapter, etc.)
- Review of training and technical resources such as IEC materials,
training curricula, guidelines, etc. and if they are accessible to field
staff and volunteers

*Key informant interviews*

- Asking beneficiaries and field staff what is and is not working
- Discussions with field based managers, which explore the question,
"What are you doing to manage for quality?"

*Group discussion*

- Asking beneficiaries and field staff what is and is not working
- Random selection of sites to visit, not influenced by staff who may
have a vested interest in showing only good things; this may also be
determined through a set of criteria established by the review team
- Feedback from implementing partners such as HNS branch staff and
volunteers, and external partners, as necessary

*Observation /*

*Site visits*

- Comprehensive review of all activities in the project
- Random selection of sites to visit, not influenced by staff who may
have a vested interest in showing only good things

*6 **Location of work*

North Jakarta branch, DKI Jakarta chapter, Bogor branch, Depok branch and
West Java chapter, PMI NHQ and Amcross

*III. Greater Jakarta Project at Glance*

*Previous evaluation activities*

The project has conducted the baseline survey during March and April 2013,
nearly a year after the project due to delays of project initiation. The
baseline results show that most of the respondents were not active in
disaster preparedness at households or community level. The finding also
indicated that 68.3% respondents have not discussed about preparedness
action at the household level and 94.8% do not know about their personal
role and responsibilities in the case of disaster in the community.

Although most respondents had not engaged in disaster preparedness, in
general they have knowledge and awareness about the importance of waste
management. About 68.4% respondents reported that they dispose their waste
to trash-can in front of the house and 17.6% reported that disposed it to
the dump site areas. They indicated that they already knew that they should
not throw waste into the river, by the fact that 3.6% of them reported
throwing their own waste into the river. From the qualitative study they
believed that the waste in the river did not belong to the communities
surround the river, but from people who lived in different areas away from
the river. Despite respondents' awareness of where to leave waste, 20.1%
reported not sorting or composting. They felt that sorting and composting
waste was difficult to do because of individual or lack of support.

Indicators

Indicator Measurement

Baseline Value

1. Percentage of beneficiaries who took at least 3 action for disaster
preparedness.

Actual by Baseline/ Endline

0

2. Percentage of households that disposed their solid waste into
designated places

Actual by Baseline/ Endline

68.4%

*Highlights of project achievements, issues/challenges, and action**s* have
been taken

To date, the targeted branches and provinces completed 26%-38% of targeted
branch level activities and 46% 0f targeted province level activities.
Depok is branch with lowest performances due to some internal issues have
been encountered. Related to village level activities, all of targeted
villages completed their VCA development, and it was expected to complete
their Risk Map and Risk Reduction Plan within this quarter.

Through continous monitoring and assessment as well as project annual
review, which was held in October 2013, there are some major issues that
have affected the project implementation and have caused some delay and a
lower than anticipated performance. Those are including1) Delay in Project
Agreement Process which caused the project only been officially started
three months late, instead of April 2012, it was July 4th; 2) Branch's
capacity and internal issue, case of North Jakarta, a significant challenge
faced was the resignation of six key staffs from the North Jakarta Branch,
as result of distrust with board members and the inability to resolve these
issues; 3) Lack of capacity, understanding and ownership on the project
management within the branch/province personel as well as board members.
There was misunderstanding that the project management is separated from
the branch/chapter that make the project personnel's were overwhelmed and
unable to accomplish activity which require support from the branch and
high level coordination; 4) Lack of understanding on project logical
intervention, components and objectives due to its complications and
ineffective methods in diseminating or transferring information in details ;
5) insufficient technical support during the activities process and poor
quality control; 6) Administrative processes in PMI NHQ, Province and
branches which is complex (financial administration procedure: cash request
and liquidation which need15-20 days for processing).

A set of draft recommendations based on the last annual review have been
made to make necessary adjustment to the project scope, budget and timeline
(i.e., need for No Cost Extension). For the first year of the project, the
project has conducted project socialization internally and to the community
level and have completed the capacity building such as various training
(Basic Training, ICBRR, SATGANA and VCA/PRA orientation). However these
activities have not generated direct output to the project in terms of the
priorities and coverage as still in the beginning f its stages. After one
year of implementation, the project only contributed to 3 out of 28 output
indicators. Most of the activities (95%) were 3-14 months delayed which
showed project difficult to maintain activities timeliness. Consequently,
having a 25% time elapsed, the project only have spent 22% of the LOP
budget (data as per march 2014).

*Administrative and logistic support*

The consultant is expected to use her/his own computer, equipment and
software. Approved administrative and logistical costs such as
transportation and accommodation cost will be reimbursed by the ARC. Air
travel and accommodation will be handled by ARC

*Reporting relationship*

The consultant will report to ARC Country Representative. The team members
will report to the consultant as team leader of mid term review

*IV. Qualification*

The consultants should provide separate application to ARC. Details for
required qualification are below:

1. Experienced in urban context and DRR practices at least recent 7
years.

2. Experienced in proposal or project design process

3. Experienced in Monitoring and evaluation process

4. Post graduate degree from a recognized institution relating to
urban planning, Disaster management, social research.

5. Excellent communication and facilitation skills.

6. Excellent report writing skill both in English and Bahasa
Indonesia.

7. Has the ability to work with minimum supervision/directions.

8. Ability to work independently, ability to juggle and coordinate
many tasks simultaneously, ability to prioritise tasks, well organized,
reliable and trustworthy

To apply this position, Candidate should submit proposal as outlined below:

*a. **Consultant experience*: This section should highlight past
experience of the consultant in conducting review, research, case study and
evaluation.

*b. **Work plan*: The proposal should clearly mention details of each
and every activity including kind of preparatory work, meetings and visits.
The time line and person(s) responsible for each activity needs to be
clearly mentioned.

*V. Duration*

The contract duration is one month starting in April 25, until May 25,
2014..

Project documents review

2 days

Field Assessment (3 branches, 2 provinces and PMI NHQ)

7 days

Report findings

2 days

Mid term review meeting/workshop

3 days

Final report

2 days

*VI. Payment*

· Payment for consultant could be requested to ARC based on
proposed LOE.

· ARC will transfer the payment after all deliverable have been
accepted through "completion of work statement" and submit all
adminitrative documetns (i.e., timesheet, invoice, etc) to ARC

*VII. Application procedures*

Please submit your application and curriculum vitae in English not later
than *14 April 2014* to *recruitment.amcross@gmail.com
<recruitment.amcross@gmail.com>*, placing the job title in the subject line
and label your CV with your name and documents. Only short listed
candidates will be notified. Applications received after the deadline will
not be considered.