Community Resilience Performance Measurement Methodology and Standard Indicators

1. Background

The concept of 'resilience' and more specifically 'community resilience' continues to attract attention within the international humanitarian and development communities.

For the IFRC the concept of resilience represents a unique opportunity. The concept itself captures the totality of what IFRC is working to achieve to a much greater extent than is the case for many other organizations as building local communities' resilience is, in many ways, the essence of what the IFRC is about and reflects decades of effort by RCRC National Societies in support of their local communities.

In 2008, IFRC published the original Framework for Community Safety and Resilience as a guidance for RCRC National Societies and in 2012 this was followed up with a discussion paper, the Road to Resilience, timed to raise policy and programming issues relating to community resilience with global thought leaders attending the Rio +20 forum.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is currently finalizing a project, titled 'The Roadmap to Resilience', that will deliver three key products to guide and support future RCRC efforts in strengthening community resilience:

a. The Community Resilience Framework – this revision of the 2008 Framework for Community Safety and Resilience will guide whatthe RCRC does in relation to community resilience and how it does it,

b. The Road to Resilience – a position paper that articulates and communicates what the RCRC does in relation to community resilience, and

c. Community Resilience Financing – a mechanism that supports the long-term, predictable funding of community resilience programming.

Key objectives of this programme include:

· Providing a framework that guides IFRCs community resilience programming at scale,

· Communicating, articulating and advocating IFRCs position in relation to community resilience and

· Identifying financing methodologies that support community resilience programming.

The availability of a reliable performance measurement approach, including performance indicators, relating to community resilience, remains a gap. This study is intended to go some way to address this need and provide a methodology whereby practitioners can confidently gather evidence about the effectiveness of the community resilience approach.

IFRC wishes to develop a clear understanding of the current thinking and practice relating to the measurement of community resilience that can be reflected in the Roadmap to Resilience products. This is particularly important given these documents are intended to guide and support RCRC efforts in this field for years to come.

2. Review Objective

This review has the objective of identifying a performance measurement methodology, including performance indicators, that supports and guides IFRC community resilience strengthening activities.

The analysis, findings and recommendations will also provide new ideas and contribute to wider efforts to improve performance measurement across IFRC.

3. Review Outcomes

The key outcomes of this review are:

a. A comprehensive, documented review of current knowledge and practice in relation to the measurement of community resilience that includes an annotated literature review as an attachment,

b. A recommended performance measurement methodology that includes standards performance indicators and that is applicable at the project, programme and global levels in line with the latest version of the community resilience framework.

4. Key Considerations

Specific issues to be discussed in this review to include:

a. Knowledge

i. Is a 'generally accepted' position about measuring community resilience present or emerging?

ii. What are the issues and thinking reflected in the literature about measuring community resilience?

b. Practice

i. What examples of successful community resilience measurement are emerging from the literature?

ii. Are there consistencies/differences in the approaches/methodologies in measuring community resilience within IFRC?

c. Analysis and comparisons

i. Is a particular approach/methodology to measuring community resilience emerging in the literature? In practice?

d. Recommended method and performance indicators

i. What methods for measuring community resilience is recommended for adoption at IFRC? Identification of specific aspects of the current IFRC M&E system development, improvement or adaptation would support better measurement of community resilience. What is the rationale supporting this recommendation?

ii. What are the standard community resilience performance indicators applicable at the project, programme and global levels? What is the rationale supporting this recommendation?

iii. What are the method's benefits, risks, costs and trade-offs for communities, National Societies, partners and other stakeholders?

5. Scope and Method

The scope of this review extends to community resilience practice in the humanitarian and development sectors.

The consultant will review the literature and interview key informants, generally via telephone or other virtual mechanisms.

Analysis, findings and recommendations are to be framed taking account of the Roadmap to Resilience programme, RCRC community resilience strengthening activities and IFRC Evaluation framework, guidance and tools.

6. Review Management

This review is being managed by the Community Preparedness and Risk Reduction Department of the IFRC, Geneva and the contact office is Mr Chris Staines, email: Chris.Staines@ifrc.org.

Following selection of the preferred proposal a contract will be established, the IFRC pro-forma consultancy contract shall apply and a copy is available upon request.

Implementation shall commence immediately upon contracting of the consultancy and be completed no later than 29th August 2014.

7. Specific Deliverables and Schedule

The key deliverables for this review are specified in the table below, together with the proposed implementation schedule. Note that the review is to be completed and the final report submitted no later than 29th August 2014.

Schedule

Activity Deliverable & Proposed Schedule

Week One 1

1. Initial briefing (Geneva x 1 day)
2. Stakeholder interviews
3. Inception Report
4. Literature Review
5. Key Informant Interviews Inception Report by end of Week One

Week Two

1. Literature Review
2. Key Informant Interviews

Week Three

1. Finalizing Literature Report
2. Drafting Report
3. Submit Draft Report and Annotated Literature Review as an Attachment Draft Report by end of Week Three

'Wrap Up' Week

1. Review feedback
2. Draft and Submit Final Report
3. De-briefing Meeting (Geneva x 1 day) Final Report
4. De-briefing Meeting

8. Consultancy Qualifications and Experience

Proposals to deliver this review will be accepted from individuals, non-profit organizations, private firms, academic institutions or a consortia of these.

The successful proposal shall demonstrate:

· Extensive experience in evaluations and statistics.

· Prior work in resilience, systems strengthening, integrated community development

· Proven capacity to deliver complex reviews, undertake complex analysis and deliver succinct and precise findings, reports and recommendations.

· Excellent writing and documentation skills in English.

· Excellent communication skills.

· Results focused, accountable and punctual.

· Extensive experience working with the Red Cross Red Crescent preferred.

How to apply:

Application Procedure and Timeline

· Interested consultancies are invited to submit a study implementation proposal to Mr. Chris Staines of the IFRC Community Preparedness and Risk Reduction Department, Geneva: chris.staines@ifrc.org

· The proposal to conduct this review should:

o Not exceed 6 pages.

o Include as annexes the CVs of all envisioned participating individuals (additional to the max. 6 pages for the concept proposal).

o Include an indicative budget not exceeding CHF20,000.

· Clarification of any matters relating to this review should be directed to Mr. Chris Staines:chris.staines@ifrc.org.