© 2005, care usa. all rights reserved. documenting programmatic operational models nepal changing...
Post on 03-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Documenting Programmatic Operational Models
NEPALChanging Power Relations
June 2010
Michael, Lora, Diana, Mary
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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….
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
ACD
Janakpur Bharatpur Doti
2008
APM APM APM
Janakpur Bharatpur Doti
2010
Janakpur Bharatpur Doti
Sector Coordinators
ACD
PD TA
TA
TA
APM APM
TC
TC TC
ACD PD
TA
TA
Clusters = Programs?Clusters
Program: Phases of Restructuring
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Program: Possible next step?
TC
ACDPD
TA
TC
Janakpur Bharatpur Doti
Cross-cutting TA
TATA
APM
AlliesPartners
TC
Pro
gra
ms
Clu
ster
s Hybrid?
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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 (+)
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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?
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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!
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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)?
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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)
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
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
top related