© 2005, care usa. all rights reserved. documenting programmatic operational models nepal changing...

© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.

Documenting Programmatic Operational Models

NEPALChanging Power Relations

June 2010

Michael, Lora, Diana, Mary


Aims of Operational Model Documentation

Document and analyze programmatic operational models

Provide recommendations for the CO and RMU

Draw out operational implications for different parts of CI

Use to refine guidance materials for the program approach


Methodology

Establish set of 23 questions as guidance Use an exploratory approach, focusing on the

CO and its partners presenting themselves Review available documentation and

materials Visit one ‘cluster’ office Use further interviews/ small group

discussions to fill in the missing gaps in the 23 questions

Attempt to synthesize….


23 Questions

Over-Arching Questions:* Vision for CARE: role, ways of doing business, reputation

Program* Present form, future aspirations and

implications for CARE* Role of TOCs and social change

* Drawing from analysis and experience* Decision-making for program initiatives* Resource mobilization strategies and shifts in funding* Role and significance of influencing others/advocacy

Operationalization* Managing IGs, themes/sectors,

geography* Structural and adaptive changes* Level of operationalization reached,

managing accountabilities* Approaching projects, their relation to

programs and to each other

* Managing transitions * Communicating and building ownership

Ops. Systems* investment implications* Human resources and

talent management* Financial,

accountability systems and program budgets

Impact, Learning and Knowledge Management

* Impact stories and DM&E* Reflective learning* Knowledge Management* Cost-effectiveness measures

Identity and Relationships* Shifting ideas of who we are and who we want to be* Working differently with others and changing perceptions of CARE among others* Decision-making on how we operate within the context


Nepal Context


Implications of Context

Political environment offers opportunity and uncertainty

Geopolitical position sandwiched between India and China; conflict has led to rural outmigration to Kathmandu, Gulf, India etc

Federal state likely Need to continue to address Nepal’s substantial

inequalities, as the key underlying cause of conflict CARE Nepal needs to cultivate a wide range of

relationships, and be adaptive in its way of working Geographic clusters and variations in strategies per

region will be important in federal state


Overarching: CARE’s Positioning

CARE’s legitimacy, in a range of potential political contexts, founded in the grass roots activism it is nurturing with its partners (solidarity; then pressure)

Managing the tension: ability to contribute to national (and regional) government agenda, but continue to promote downward accountability

Pressure to become more distinctly Nepalese Grow cooperative (rather than competitive)

relationships and alliances Use ‘global’ CARE to develop sub-regional

relationships and programming


WE Equity & Justice

Governance

Conflict

Regio

ns

1

23

CARE Nepal: Program ‘Rubic’ Cube

Cross-cutting themes

Health

NRM

DRR?

CO decentralized to 3 geographic clusters, now is addressing challenges of developing accountability systems for programs

Cross cutting theme strategies partially articulated

Question of whether E&J is separate program, or embedded

In addition some national initiatives

BharatpurJanakpur

Doti


Program Framework

Grounded in 3 geographic clusters (and Kathmandu). This is about model development

3 core programs being developed o Women’s Empowerment; o Natural Resources, Environment and Livelihoodso Equity and Justice

Impact group distinct for WE, other two share same IG 4 core, linked, methodological processes

o Community led, social analysis for action (and associated culture of inquiry)

o Reflect groupso Movement creation and networkingo Connecting to broader stakeholders and developing

independent voice


Program Framework: Unresolved Questions

Three programs or two? Theories of change need refinement across all

programs Recommendation that Equity and Justice is folded

into other two; these are principles of how you work If so, remaining TOCs need to become more distinct

eg GBV and SRH not clearly in WE TOC. Clarify breakthroughs: these are important!! Develop/ clarify cross-cutting theme strategies –

these need to be adapted for each impact group


Program Operationalization

Basic Elements: 2003 – Restructuring to move from direct implementation

to working through partners, and to embrace a rights based approach.

2008 – Deconstruction of sectors and decentralization to cluster offices in three geographic regions, with area managers heading each office.

2010 – Reorganization of core team in each cluster office to implement programs. Two clusters designated ‘centres of excellence’ for one program, with 3 core positions, those of theme coordinator (based in Kathmandu), operational manager, and monitoring and learning coordinator. Doti retains Area and Partnerships Managers.


ACD

Janakpur Bharatpur Doti

2008

APM APM APM


2010


Sector Coordinators

ACD

PD TA

TA

TA

APM APM

TC

TC TC

ACD PD

TA

TA

Clusters = Programs?Clusters

Program: Phases of Restructuring


Program: Possible next step?

TC

ACDPD

TA

TC


Cross-cutting TA

TATA

APM

AlliesPartners

TC

Pro

gra

ms

Clu

ster

s Hybrid?


Resource Mobilization

Good donor diversification (but complicates compliance issues)

Resource mobilization strategies for programs involving new donors to be developed in FY11?

55% of cluster expenses for subgrants. How to evolve partnership strategies beyond grant making?

CARE-Nepal Budget for FY-10

CO General-Purpose2%

Govt. of Austria7%

DFID21%

EU19%

CARE USA- Unrestricted3%

Private Funding8%

Danida24%

CARE Canada1%

USAID15%

CARE USA- Unrestricted CO General-Purpose Private Funding

Danida DFID EU

CARE Canada Govt. of Austria USAID


Program Design and Resourcing

Inclusive Go/ No-Go team (including finance and HR), but need to be clearer on criteria for decision making in PA;

Program design teams established, but process and commitments need tightening

Proposal success rate of 34% is average, but does not fully leverage the quality of the program

Resourcing/ marketing strategy too reactive; can improve prior relationships with donors receiving proposals

Diversification strategy good so far, but still needs further attention by the senior team (non-traditional sources of funding?) – need for flexible restricted funding within a program


Operationalizing PA

First stage of geographic clustering an decentralization well established, integrated into operational planning, staffing and budgeting systems

Next stage of operational integration of Programs might include: Program level operational planning including AOPs, HR

planning, and financial planning/budgeting Currently these systems are still operating at project and cluster level

Resource mobilization strategies including leveraging strategies and documentation at program level (need systems for analysis of resource mobilization of allies and partners)

Identification of core program resource requirements to advance program strategy including personnel, partnerships and activities.

Development of clearer team responsibilities


Program Operationalization: Unresolved Questions

Program quality and performance accountabilities – how do the Theme/ Program Coordinators manage this across the clusters?

Tailoring of project design to fit missing niches in programs (this is done only for clusters at present). TOC refinement will help this to happen

Building staff trust and retention across projects (initial start with internal transfers); transparency essential


Cost Implications of Program Approach, CARE Nepal

Time(image not to scale)

Co

st (

US

D)

10M

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Initial increase in costs to transition to Program Approach

Long-term efficiencies

Projected costs and savings (initial hypothesis)

Operational cost (-)

Program design (+ especially for UNR)

Staffing (-) and (+)


What is Core Funding in PA?

Core main office costs estimated at $1.2 million. Core PA include key program (TC) and program

level specialists est $150k per program (poverty analysis, gender, policy)

Core cluster budgets include core cluster personnel (OM, FO) plus core office operations (80k-250k).

Current total cluster budgets approx $6 million with 55% for sub grants to sub grants Are their alternative partnership arrangements that are not based on grant making? Or is this core to program approach?


Program Approach and Financial Compliance

The multiplication of compliance and reporting systems (including program reporting and documentation systems) is linked to donor/CI member diversity and to operating in project mode. A general point on CI, C/USA CO, or donor compliance requirements is that with the program approach they need to identify systems that cuts across the various requirements as much as possible, rather than duplicating efforts at a project level. Currently the various projects and clusters have various ways do assessing partner eligibility and risk with respect to grant management. They have begun to standardize grant management processes and systems, but this will need more work at program level, e.g agreeing cost standards with partners, agreeing management practices, etc.

So long as CARE Nepal accepts fiduciary responsibility for institutional funding

they will need to manage the related compliance implications, and with donor diversification this becomes more complex (I mentioned this somewhere in the text or slides and am happy to speak to this). Compliance and reporting complexity is one factor for consideration in the development of the donor strategies. Private sector and foundation funding may be more flexible in some cases but it is not a panacea for minimizing compliance requirements.

Don’t overinterpret the rigidity of the systems!


Analysis and Learning Strategies, Frameworks and Tools

Situation, Context

Theories of Change

Program Quality

Impact

UCPA REFLECT

Program FrameworksGARI Workshop Guidance (CARE UK)

PQATPIMSDME Strategy

IM Framework

WEP, IM Framework


Analysis and Learning in Practice

Situation, Context Theories of Change

Program Quality

UCPA REFLECT groups and link to broader networksPolicy, budget analysesCluster meetingsCross-cluster exchange visits

Action research on governance

Learning workshopsPQAT to review program frameworksCluster planning, discussion & reviewsAdapting initiatives to opportunities and prioritiesStudies (i.e. non-formal education)

Deeper, systematic analylses of context, PQ, impact across

program implementation?

Linking program designs and

analyses back to Theories of

Change (and breakthroughs)?


Impact Monitoring/Measurement

Achievements Burning Questions

IM framework developed

Measuring less, but better

and across time?

Accountability to IGs and not just donors?

Linking M&E and IM to emerging

issues and changes?

Understanding project

progress in relation to program?

Next Steps

Challenges

Donor, gov, CI driven

requirements

Applying IM system, making

it relevant

Develop and put in place IM

frameworks for each program

Build consensus across team

leaders on what to measure/how


Envisioning Ways ForwardAnalysis and Learning

M&E for what? Develop partnerships with local universities or research institutes

for deepening research

Refine UCPA for variable contexts Harness UCPA to develop appropriate indicators

Use well-being analyses for monitoring change and informal analysis tools to understand change

Align analyses and impact monitoring to test theories of change and to inform government/broader priorities

Ensure M&E and Learning in a program –organizational structure?

Being able to tell inductive impact stories


Knowledge Sharing and Management

Strengths Challenges

Cluster-level sharingOpportunities for exchange and sharing: workshops, trainings, exchangesProcesses in place for sharing as clusters, and across clustersM&E and Learning Manager at Cluster level, Social Analysis position at CO levelCommon folder (HQ)

Program-level sharing Documentation and syntheses of learning.Systematic use of program frameworks and TOCsEffective KM procedures? Platforms? Staff turnover Retaining institutional learning


Develop processes/procedures to hold people accountable for more systematic documentation and sharing of achievements, challenges and learning

Develop architecture and procedures on how to use common folder

Envisioning Ways ForwardKS and KM


Identity and Relationships

Shifting from project identity to CARE identity – changing internal power relations

Activism both/and Facilitation (leadership both/and followship)

Developing an extended identity Partnerships – Building cooperation rather than

competition In interest of equity and justice need to look at less

dependency creating ways of grant making; mechanisms to show solidarity

Possibility of basket funds to support networks, avoiding the current identity problems


Are Programs Making a Difference

Development of synergies and greater coherence (initially in clusters)

Ability to achieve more with less (eg CA initiative) because of synergies

Cost-efficiencies Returns on investment eg the wage labour story Sold cost-efficiencies of program approach to the

EU, and CARE Denmark, Austria and UK support (CIUK looking for opportunisitic niches providing leverage value)

Impact stories in the making (learning to tell them)


Key Recommendations for Next Steps

(In process of attaining Level 2) Refine TOCs and make decision on # of programs Develop Program Leadership Teams Need to be operational and resource planning

around the programs More restructuring not necessary at this point;

clustering process has provided good foundation for programmatic work, but do focus on rebuilding staff morale (and career development)

Develop learning piece – how to tell and market our (collective) story

New leadership team to reinforce commitment of staff to equity and justice agenda

New grant making mechanisms required

© 2005, care usa. all rights reserved. documenting programmatic operational models nepal changing...

Documents