Terms of Reference for the Mid Term Evaluation of the Project. NGO Security Service Engagement to Stem Human Rights Abuses in Indonesia

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference for the Mid Term Evaluation of the Project NGO Security Service Engagement to Stem Human Rights Abuses in Indonesia Search for Common Ground Indonesiais looking for an experienced evaluator to carry out the Mid Term evaluation of its two year project NGO Security Service Engagement to Stem Human Rights Abuses in Indonesia, a program aiming to reduce human rights violations by Densus 88 officers by bridging the relationship between Indonesia s security sectorand civil society. This program is funded by the U.S. Department of State s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL). This Terms of Reference (TOR) defines the work that must be carried out by the external reviewer/evaluator. It provides a brief outline of the project, specifies the scope of the evaluation, and outlines the evaluation method. I. Background 1.A Project Summary As Indonesia emerged in the late 1990s from Suharto s regime, the country underwent a series of dramatic reforms, including the detachment of the national police from the armed forces, which had been joined since Independence in Densus 88, a detachment within the newly formed Indonesian National Police, was established by the national government after the Bali bombings in 2002, the largest terrorist attack on Indonesian soil to date, which killed 202 people and injured 240. Densus 88 was envisioned as an elite force that worked to counter and prevent terrorism, and since its inception has been funded by the American and Australian governments, among others. It now has an estimated staff of 400, consisting of investigators, explosive experts, snipers, etc. However, public awareness of the success of Densus 88 in pursuing Indonesia s counter-terrorism and de-radicalization strategiesremains low. Since its inception, the organization has faced a hostile media and civil society who view the organization as unnecessarily violent, un-islamic and generally disengaged from the community at large. Densus 88 (and, more broadly, Indonesian security personnel as a whole, including other police units) has been widely accused of human rights violations, particularly by NGOs and activists. In 2009, Amnesty International published a comprehensive report which detailed torture, sexual abuse, and excessive use of force and firearms by Indonesian police against suspects and detainees, often from poor and marginalized backgrounds; other grievances against the police included widespread corruption and denying suspects adequate medical care and legal counsel. However, because of the adversarial relationship between local NGOs and Densus 88 (and Indonesian security personnel more broadly), this potential collaboration has been difficult to facilitate. This project aims to transform this adversarial relationship into one of constructive engagement by bridging civil society and Indonesian security personnel in order to stem human rights abuses within the Indonesian police. The theory of change on which the program is based: If we build the capacity of the security sectorin understandinghuman rights and conflict resolution principles in relation to counter terrorism, security sector personnel will reduce their human rights violations,thus contributing to a more stable and peaceful Indonesia. If we guidengos focused on human rights and peace building to share best human rights practices and engage with security personnel, there will be better understanding between civil society groups and security services. If we providecomprehensive information to civilian leaders on human rights abuses in the security sector, they will have a better understanding of, and possible solutions for, reforming security sector institutions.

2 If we facilitate meetings between civil society groups, security service, and civilian leaders, there will be constructive engagement between them to monitor and evaluate the progress of the Indonesian security sector in upholding international human right standards and principles. The evaluator should also develop rival theories of change during the course of evaluation in consultation with SFCG program team and the DM&E Specialist. The overall goal of this project is to transform the current adversarial relationship between Indonesian security forces and civil society (particularly NGOs) into one of constructive engagement in order to more effectively stem human rights abuses by Indonesian police personnel. The specific objectives are: To expand the reach and strengthen the networks of human rights NGOs, facilitating their engagement with the Indonesian police; To increase civilian leaders awareness of human rights abuses within the security sector in order to equip them to more effectively address these abuses; and To bolster the capacity of Indonesian security personnel, specifically police, in understanding how to apply human rights and conflict resolution principles in their law enforcement work, particularly in counter-terrorism initiatives. The target groups for this program are: Members of Densus 88 who are trained on human right and conflict resolution principles, NGOs focused on human right issues, and Civilian leaders, especially those with direct decision-making authority. The project activities include: 1. Engagement Meetings NGO and Security Service Multi-Stakeholder engagement Security Service and Civilian Leaders stakeholder meeting Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues (NGO Security Services Civilian Leaders) 2. Capacity Building Module development in Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Training for Security Service in Human Rights and Conflict Resolution 3. Policy Intervention Policy Brief production Distribution of Policy Brief for Civilian Leaders This project is intended to have several direct results: An enhanced network of NGOs that are able to share better practices and engage with security personnel 300 Indonesian police personnel that have a practical understanding of human rights and conflict resolution principles in relation to counter-terrorism civilian leaders that have a better understanding of human rights abuses in the security sector and solutions for reforming security sector institutions More constructive engagement between civil society groups, security service, and civilian leaders, leading to cooperation on monitoring and evaluating Indonesia security service s progress in upholding international human rights standards and principles

3 1.B Organizational Background Search for Common Ground ( has been working in Indonesia since The mission is to transform the way the world deals with conflict: away from adversarial approaches, toward cooperative solutions. SFCG works in 32 countries across five continents engaging in a long-term process of incremental transformation. In Indonesia, SFCG has a multi-pronged approach to support the peacebuilding process, combining media with community peace building work. SFCG Indonesia has 20 staff with a presencein at least 15 provinces across the country and works with youth, women, security service, teacher, media, and other civil society. II. The Evaluation 2.A Organizational Goal SFCG as an organizationis committed to conducting programmatic evaluations on a two year basis in order to maximize the effectiveness of our programming and engage in continuous improvement and learning within programs and across the organization. SFCG also conducts additional evaluations on specific projects, such as this program. 2.B Evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions Thismid-term evaluationaims to review the activities that have been implemented for the first year of the program. This evaluation will help the program leadership and partner to make decisions on how to effectively engage each target group to have solid cooperation on enforcing human rights principles in law enforcement work. The findingsfor this evaluation include lessons learned and recommendations in order to plan for the next step sactivities. The evaluation will specifically focus on the following dimensions taken from the OECD DACs Guidance on Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding activities: Relevance: To what extent was the project s approach relevant to reducing human right abuses practiced by security personnel, and engaging human rights NGOs and civilian leaders to support security services in enforcing human rights principles in their work? Was the set of activities sufficient? To what extent did the different categories of activities complement each other? Did the project target the right group of beneficiaries? What unexpected results did the project lead to? Effectiveness: Did the participant s knowledge and skills in human rights and conflict management improve, and to what extent did the participant use the learned skills to resolve conflict, implement human rights principles, andreintegrate these principles back into their work? To what extent did the project empower the security personnel? To what extent did the skills learned through the training and NGOs input on human rights principles and practices help security personnel to avoid human rights violations? Did the project foster cooperation between security personnel and human right NGOs, and between security personnel and civilian leaders?

4 Coherence and coordination: How well was the program implementation process managed? How was the coordination between SFCG s program leadership and partner in implementing the program? 2.C Audience The primary audience of this evaluation includes: The program officer of this project, the staff of SFCG Indonesia, and partner of this project for mapping out reflections and lessons learned from the mid-year project activities and to use the recommendations for designing the phase of project activities. The U.S. Department of State s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, the funding agency, for assessing the effective and efficient use of the funding to achieve stated goals and results of the project. The secondary audiences include the Indonesian government, SFCG headquarters and other country programs; other partner organizations that may be interested in the results and lessons learned from this evaluation. 2.D Evaluation Methodology SFCG has guiding principles for conducting program evaluations. These include: participatory, culturally sensitive, committed to building capacity, affirmative and positive while honest and productively critical, and valuing knowledge and approaches from within the context. The evaluator will meet the project participants, partners, SFCG staff and relevant stakeholders. Meetings will be conducted in Jakarta. If it is not possible to meet some of the project participants in Jakarta, he/she will travel to several places in Java or Sulawesi, as locations of participant-based work vary. The consultant evaluator will develop the methodology and tools of the evaluation finalize in consultation with SFCG management and DM&E staff. The evaluation methodology and data collection tools will need approval from the SFCG Indonesia DM&E team. III. Scope of Work 3.A Location: This evaluation will take place in Jakarta and/or in some districts in Java and Sulawesi to be finalized in consultation with the Program Director and the DM&E Officer. 3.B Deliverables: The consultant is expected to submit a final report of the mid-term evaluation. The report should strictly be written in English language and should not exceed pages (excluding annexes). It should be submitted electronically in a MS-Word document (see annex 1 for report format). It may include: Executive Summary of key findings and recommendations; Evaluation findings, analysis and conclusions with associated evidence and data clearly illustrated. Use of tables, graphs, quotes, anecdotes and stories to illustrate findings and conclusions is encouraged; Recommendations for the next actions, which should be practical and linked directly to conclusions; and Appendices, including methodology and evaluation tools, list of interviewees, questionnaire, and brief biography of evaluator.

5 The evaluator will strictly follow the reporting format while writing the report.the evaluator will incorporate the comments furnished by SFCG and will submit an edited final report at the end. The report will be credited to the evaluator and potentially placed in the public domain at the decision of SFCG. 3.C Duration & Deadlines The duration of contract will be a total of one month, starting from the first of October 2013 to the end of October2013. The evaluation plan should be submitted by 25September The field evaluation should take place between 1 10 October The first draft of the report along with all the financial receipts should be submitted by 20 October The final report should be submitted by 31 October All information generated during the evaluation will be sole property of SFCG and are subject to submission to SFCG along with the final report. 3.D Logistical Support SFCG will provide preparatory and logistical assistance to the evaluator(s), including: Background materials (project proposal, periodic reports, existing evaluations, etc.) Meetings, phone/ communication with program administrators Identify interviewees and provide contact information All logistical support for the field visit, including the travel cost (local as well as air travel) Arranging meetings and appointments with stakeholders and beneficiaries in the field (if necessary). IV. Evaluator's Role and Competencies Evaluator s Role The evaluation will be carried out by a single external evaluator, who will report to and work under the guidance of SFCG's DM&E Officer, who is also the Evaluation Manager of this evaluation. The external evaluator will: Identify and define evaluation priority areas, methodology and indicators; Design and implement data collection; Analyze data and findings and prepare a report; Write and submit a final report; Make a brief presentation of findings and recommendations to SFCG Indonesia and partners. Evaluator competencies Sound knowledge aboutterrorism and human right issues, particularly in Indonesian context; Sound understanding of the works of Security Services Institutions (Densus 88), Human Right NGOs; Sound knowledge on program development; Academic degree in social sciences and other related fields; Demonstrated technical skills in peace building project evaluations; Proficiency in written English Prior experiences of evaluating peacebuilding and human rights programs will be an added advantage

6 Annex I: Report Format Title Page: Title, Address of SFCG Country Office, Name of Primary Contact, Name of Internal Evaluator, Time-frame of evaluation, Date of Report, Name of Organization commissioning evaluation (donor), SFCG Logo Table of Contents : Main headings and page numbers Executive Summary (2 pages) : A description of the project that was evaluated - A description of the purpose of the evaluation and the evaluation objectives - Main audiences and users of the review findings - A short description of evaluation methods - Short summary of key findings, conclusions and recommendations Introduction (1 page): Explanation of the context in which this evaluation was conducted. - A description of why the evaluation was conducted (purpose) and why is it being evaluated at this particular point - A description of who the primary audience and users of the evaluation Project Overview: (2-3 pages) This section of the report is to provide enough information to the user or reader about the project in order for them to understand the evaluation results. It must includeproject Goal, Objectives, Phases, significant challenges or alterations to the project (plans, strategies, logical frameworks), scale of intervention, key partners, total resources, context (socio-economic, political, institutional), and implementation constraints (i.e. resource limitations). Evaluation Methodology (1-2 pages): Evaluation Scope: name of geographical areas, data gathering time period - Data Sources: Type of data collected (Documents, surveys, FGDs, KIIs) - Evaluation Team and corresponding responsibilities - Ethical considerations - Limitations to methodology Key Findings (10 pages max): In this section the evaluation questions must be answered using evidence and data. This section should be structured in a way that the reader can easily make connections between the purpose of the evaluation and the data gathered. - Include if there is any variances between planned and actual results - Assumptions or risks in the project or programme should also be stated Conclusions (1 page): Summarize any overarching lessons learned, for instance what new knowledge was gained from this particular intervention that can be applicable in similar contexts - Highlight strengths and weakness of the intervention

7 - Conclusions should be based on evidence and address evaluation questions Recommendations: (1 page) - Practical, feasible recommendations for the intended users (program staff, country director, SFCG, or donors) should be included. - Proposed additional monitoring activities jointly developed with Monitoring & Evaluation Officer and including a budget. - Recommendations should be supported by evidence gathered and linked to conclusions related to key evaluation objectives - Recommendations should be action oriented Appendix/Annexes - Short Biography of internal evaluator - Copy of Methodology (Survey questions, FGD and KII checklists) - If appropriate: a list of individuals interviewed, supporting documents reviewed, summary tables displaying progress on key indicators, outputs, outcomes