Vacancy: American Red Cross – Consultant for DM & Logistics Readiness Mid-Term Review

Terms of Reference

Review of the Indonesian Disaster Management and Logistics Readiness

Emergency Water Supply and Strengthening Regional Logistics Capacity project



The El Niño which started in 2014 and continued until 2016, exacerbated drought conditions and also created significant water supply shortages, particularly for vulnerable populations. ,

In 2016, with the funding support from USAID/OFDA, the American Red Cross (ARC) proposed to provide assistance to drought affected populations and improve PMI disaster response capacity and improved coordination among key stakeholders during El Niño-related drought, and related and longer term disaster management situations.

To achieve this, a number of activities were suggested such as a) conducting a comprehensive water supply assessment; b) providing temporary water supply to communities adversely affected by severe drought conditions; and c) strengthening existing PMI regional disaster response management by improving disaster management policies, standard operational procedures and coordination mechanisms related to water supply and  non-food-item (NFI) logistics with government i.e. Disaster Management Agency – Badan Nasional Penanggulangan Bencana – BNPB, local government owned Water Supply Enterprise-PDAM, Local government, international  organizations (e.g. UNICEF, World Food Program-WFP) and the private sector (e.g., Indonesian Chambers of Commerce-KADIN members).

The Goal of the project and its related outcomes are given below:

Goal: Assistance to drought affected populations and improved PMI disaster response capacity and improved coordination among key stakeholders during short-term El Niño-related drought, and related and longer term disaster management situations.

Outcome 1: Targeted communities adversely affected by severe drought conditions receive adequate clean water and hygiene promotion.

Outcome 2: Targeted PMI regional and Sub-Regional hub strengthening capacity and management by developing SOPs, contingency plan and improving personnel’s response skills and knowledge.

Project scope:

The project has focused on targeting drought affected communities through strategic intervention in the following 5 provinces of East Java, Central Java, West Java, East Nusa Tenggara, and West Nusa Tenggara. With emergency water supply intervention in those five provinces recently concluded, PMI NHQ continues with research and innovation in a small scale, along with advocacy and strengthening coordination mechanism at national and regional South-East Asia levels. In addition to this, there has also been strengthening of PMI’s capacities in their regional hubs of five regions which are based on demographic coverage, including Sumatra Region (Padang warehouse), Kalimantan region (Banjarmasin warehouse), West Java-Banten-Jakarta region (Serang warehouse), Central Java-Yogyakarta region (Semarang warehouse), East Java-Bali-NTT-NTB region (Surabaya warehouse), and Sulawesi-Maluku-Papua region (Ujung Pandang warehouse). The strengthening efforts covers national logistics system improvement, personnel capacity building, logistics-related policy development, and replenishment stock.

Summary of scope of work:

The consultant will be responsible for a mid-term review of the ‘Indonesian Disaster Management and Logistics Readiness and Emergency Water Supply and Strengthening Regional Logistics Capacity’ project currently being implemented in Indonesia. The consultant will assess the progress and challenges faced in the implementation process and provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness, strategy and content of the project. The consultant will work closely with American Red Cross Indonesia Country Office, Program Coordinator, M&E Officer, Project Manager, PMI NHQ, regional and Chapter/Brach team members to conduct the review.

Objectives of the review:

  • To measure the project performance in terms of relevance, time, budget and scope.
  • To assess major factors of projects successes and challenges that contributed to the variance (both positive and negative) of the achievements.
  • To obtain inputs and recommendation to make adjustments to the project implementation in terms of timing, approaches and strategies, sustainability and exit plans
  • Identify unmet needs and promising approaches that could be included in a follow-on project/cost extension.

Review criteria and questions:

Performance AreaKey Questions
  • How well does the project implementation follow the project document and the project implementation plan?
  • Do the project approaches and strategies address the identified and evolving issues/needs of the National Society?
  • Are the approaches and strategies selected by the project relevant/ appropriate responsive to the needs of beneficiaries in the given context?
  • To what extent do the project design and its related objectives take into account the relevant operating systems of the National Society?
  • Is there a need to revise the project design and its corresponding objectives and activities for the remaining project period? If yes, how and what would they be?
  • Were quality standards defined prior to start of implementation and how far did the activities reach the defined standards?
  • What were the mechanisms put in place to ensure the qualities of the activities and of project related training?
  • What were the challenges or gaps to reach those quality standards?
  • Are there any mechanism in places to ensure that the quality standards defined through this project is transferred or replicated by the NS as part of their continuous organizational development and learning?
  • To what extent has the implemented activities contributed to achieving the project objectives indicators?
  • What are key challenges, problems and gaps in implementing the key activities and how these are being addressed?
  • How has the training initiatives contributed to the further institutional capacity building of the NS?
  • How well are the project stakeholders planning for the sustainability of the project’s activities and/or outcomes, as appropriate?
  • How well has the project been able to develop and strengthen relationships with external stakeholders to advocate for the sustainability of the project activities, process, methodologies etc?
  • Have the project activities delivered that it has met the needs of communities in a timely and adequate manner?
  • Are activities implemented as planned (e.g. producing IEC materials before relevant training event)? Are quarterly and monthly work plans developed?  Are the plans (planned target against budget and time) realistic?
  •  What are major problems currently affecting timeliness, relevance and quality and how can they be solved?
  • Are the interventions phased and delivered in a rational sequence that well reflects the needs of affected populations and project timeline?
  • How well has the unit managed their resources (staff, volunteers, funding, time)?
  • Does the project have sufficient human resources/ technical persons to deliver quality services? Has the project utilized the existing human resources (human resource, technical people) in an efficient manner?
  • How efficient are work practices and procedures?
Cross Cutting
  • How have cross-cutting issues such as gender, disability, old age, environment been integrated into the project design and implementation?
  • Has the project been able to identify the needs for these vulnerable groups and addressed them adequately?
  • What have been the systems to monitor the engagement of the vulnerable groups and elicit feedback?
Monitoring and Evaluation
  • Are the M&E systems and mechanisms adequate to ensure it timeliness, effectiveness and relevance?
  • What have been the challenges, gaps and strengths of this system and how can it be improved?
  • How does the M&E result contribute to the reporting and decision-making process?
  • Does the current practice for reporting, capturing good practices and learning contribute to the improvement of the project implementation?
  • What are the challenges, gaps and strengths of the current practices for reporting, documenting good practices and learning and how can it be improved?

Overarching key questions and points of inquiry:

  • To determine if there have been any changes to scope and if changes have been appropriate and its corresponding impacts on budget.
  • To determine among proposed, but yet to be implemented changes to scope, are they the best options for improved project performance.
  • To examine how significant current under-spending is, reasons behind slow spending and provide recommendations to increase spending rate.
  • To assess the quality of training in the project, Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) and curriculum development and if there are any impacts of the same
  • To identify any additional technical support needed to assure project quality and preparation for exit strategy.
  • To explore and present new project ideas that could justify requesting a cost extension and what the cost extension could look like
  • To determine if they any changes to the project (actual or planned) that are significant enough to inform or request permission from the donor
  • To examine the effectiveness of partnership/collaboration approach at provincial, national and regional (ASEAN) levels.
  • To determine quality of WASH component review and lessons learned documentation


MethodCritical element of Project review process
Desk review
  • Analysis of documentation for the project(s) under review:  proposal, amendment (s), recent quarterly project reports, previous evaluations, 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 assessment reports, Lesson Learned reports, SOP, training and technical resources such as training curricula, guidelines, etc. and if they are accessible to field staff and volunteers
Key informant interviews
  • Asking key stakeholders, beneficiaries and staff what is and is not working
  • Discussions with project managers and their respective teams which explore a range of programmatic issues which could focus on what can be done better.
Group discussion
  • Asking stakeholders, beneficiaries and staff/team members what was effective and what was not
  • Feedback from implementing partners such as regional and Chapter/Branch staff and volunteers, and external partners, as necessary
Observation /

Site visits

  • Comprehensive review of all activities in the project
  • If possible, random selection of sites to visit, not influenced by staff


Location of work:

Jakarta with visits to field sites (if necessary). N.B. it is also possible to convoke key project staff to attend a review meeting in Jakarta or other logistically advantageous location.

Administrative and logistic support

The consultant is expected to use her/his own computer. Approved administrative and logistical costs will be reimbursed by the Red Cross Team. The consultant will be able to work remotely, after approval of the work plan. Travel costs for PMI and ARC staff to attend review related meetings and activities will be covered directly by AmCross.

Reporting relationship

The contract will be made by AmCross through the IFRC or AmCross’s headquarters in Washington, DC, meanwhile the consultant will report to Red Cross Team (PMI/ARC) led by AmCross’s Program Coordinator.

Suggested Duration:

Project Documents review (home-based)2 days
Inception report and revised work schedule


2 days
In-country meetings and field visits10 days
Drafting and presentation of findings2 days
Finalization of mid-term review report (home-based)4 days


  • Inception report and revised work schedule
  • Mid-term review report in English and Bahasa Indonesia
  • Presentation of final report to key stakeholders in Jakarta


Successful candidates should possess the following qualifications:

  1. Experience in conducting project management level reviews, particularly for USAID and USAID/OFDA funded projects
  2. Experienced in WASH practices and systems
  3. Working understanding on Logistic systems and processes.
  4. Experienced in proposal or project design process
  5. Experienced in Monitoring and evaluation process
  6. Post graduate degree from a recognized institution relating to WASH, Public Health, Disaster management, social research or related field.
  7. Understanding of Red Cross Red Crescent system and/or Indonesian Red Cross structure and working mechanism
  8. Excellent communication and facilitation skills in English and Bahasa Indonesia.
  9. Excellent report writing skill both in English and Bahasa Indonesia.
  10. Has the ability to work with minimum supervision/directions.
  11. Ability to work independently, ability to juggle and coordinate many tasks simultaneously, ability to prioritize tasks, well organized, reliable and trustworthy

Application Process

REGISTER/LOGIN to read more, it's FREE
  • This job has expired!
Share this job

Organizational Context – The American Red Cross (AmCross) helps vulnerable people around the world to prevent, prepare for and respond to disasters, complex humanitarian emergencies and life-threatening health conditions. It is a member of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and works closely with Palang Merah Indonesia (PMI). Currently AmCross supports programs in Aceh, Jakarta, West, Central and East Java, Bali, NTB and NTT.  AmCross works with the Indonesia Red Cross (PMI) focusing on three program sectors: Disaster Management, Health, and Organizational Development.

NGO Job Search


How we can help ? Please feel free to CONTACT US

About us / Disclaimer

DevJobsIndo.ORG is not affiliated with devjobsindo yahoo mailing groups.MORE