Achieving Lasting ImpactsUnderstanding the shift to more programmatic approaches in CARE

Presentation Plan

• External Trends and Challenges• Meeting These Challenges and opportunities• Changes• Program Definitions and Characteristics• Internal Organizational Changes• Organizational Performance Measurement • Learning Structures

External Challenges & Opportunities

Underlying causes of poverty Project do not address poverty New development approaches Northern policies Social movements Critique of International NGOs Importance of impact assessment

Response to Opportunities and Challenges

WHY: Poor defining and measuring UCP No theory to address them Failure to build on gains Too much “CARE”, Organizational Amnesia Organizational norms of what constitutes success

SII on Women’s Empowerment

15% best in class 60% agency level impact 25% not so good

CI’s Response: 5 Strategic Directions

Emergency Response Global Advocacy Organizational Evolution Information and Knowledge

Management Building Shared Expertise

CARE USA’s Response

CARE helpscommunitiesachievelong-termreductionsin povertyby…

Developinghumancapacity &providingeconomicopportunity

Andaddressingsocialinjustice& inequity

With a focus on marginalizedwomen & girls

Demonstrating a long-termcommitment to the community Addressing all threecomponents of the Unifying Framework

Leveraging our areas of expertise, informed by ourdeep understanding of community needs

Measuring impact and advocating for policy change

Addressing basichuman conditionsthrough sectoralinterventions

Addressing powerimbalances resultingfrom• Poor governance• Gender inequities• Discrimination• Social and economic

exclusion

Understanding that women and girls are the most vulnerable, with the strongestimpact on wholecommunities’ well-being

Acknowledging that working with men and boys will becrucial to our ongoing work

= x x

Changes

CI vision, mission, values CI program principles RBA and UCP Unifying framework Commitment to women and

girls Humanitarian + development Multi-sectoral identity Local identity and relevance Stewardship of resources

SAME DIFFERENT

Global identity and brand Advocacy function at all levels National-level impacts Strategic partnerships New practices and knowledge Impacts not just

outputs/outcomes Reward program quality and

impact

Defining a Program Approach

Defining aProgrammatic

Approach

Definition of a Program

A program is a coherent set of initiatives by CARE and our allies that involves a long term commitment to specific marginalized and vulnerable groups to achieve lasting impact at broad scale on underlying causes of poverty and social injustice. This goes beyond the scope of projects to achieve positive changes in human conditions, in social positions and in the enabling environment.

8 Characteristics1.A clearly defined goal for impact on the lives of a specific group, realized at broad scale.2.A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty and social injustice at multiple levels with multiple stakeholders. 3.An explicit theory of change that is rigorously tested and adapted to reflect ongoing learning.4.A coherent set of initiatives that enable CARE and our partners to contribute significantly to the transformation articulated in the theory of change.5.Ability to promote organizational and social learning, to generate knowledge and evidence of impact.6.Contribution to broad movements for social change through our work with and strengthening of partners, networks and alliances. 7.A strategy to leverage and influence the use and allocation of financial and other resources within society for maximizing change at a broader scale. 8.Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders.

CO Strategy

Consist of 3-5 programs Long-term measurement systems and learning

processes Added value to projects Define CARE locally CO-level impact assessment and reporting

Role of Region

Focus more on COs’ programs Regional programs will be developed Regional learning and knowledge sharing

Signature Program

Both CARE Aus and CUSA Should meet all eight characteristics Value to image building and branding In CO may contribute to

•locally-defined program •entire program

Sectoral Excellence

Changes in technical assistance Change how projects are done Enhance our accountability systems Multi-country programs

CARE International

Program Working Group Non-lead members continue as before:

o add value to project-based donor modalities

International policy advocacy aims

Fundraising

New philanthropies and private individuals New kinds of collaborations Coalitions for lobbying donors

Marketing and Communication

Will produce impact evidence Will provide better stories about impact Will differentiate CARE from peers Collaboration will help:

o distinct image and relationships in the Northo knowledge and learning products and processes

Internal Organizational Changes

Financial

Increase funds to COs Align financial management policies Linking COs and new donors

Human Resources

Clearer accountabilities Better talent retention

Internal Organizational Changes

Knowledge Sharing and Learning

Stronger incentives Global reporting on common indicators + reflective practice Stronger global learning and knowledge sharing system

Communications and Marketing

Differentiates CARE Understand Impacts on underlying causes

and Simple impact story Consistent internal messaging

Organizational Performance Measurement

1. UBORA: A global performance measurement system that:

• connects program and program support• uses common indicators • reflective practice competencies• performance story at multiple levels

2. Program Support “Basic” indicators - all COs end of FY ‘09

3. Program “Plus” indicators - Learning Labs in FY ‘09

Why CO-Level Indicators

Only financial performance measures Deepens project-based strategies and

approaches To balance current emphasis Start rewarding staff for program quality

and impact.

Program Process Indicators

Promote Empowerment

1. # and % of program initiatives* that have deliberate strategies to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women.

Work with Partners

2. # of strategic partnerships and alliances (non-project; non-contract specific) in place.

Ensure Accountability and Promote Responsibility

3. # and % program initiatives that have a functioning system in place to be held accountable by participants and civil society.4. # and % program initiatives that have a clear approach for compelling those with responsibilities toward poor and marginalized people to fulfill their obligations.

Address Discrimination

5. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy for opposing discrimination and promoting equity, in particular gender equity.

Program Process Indicators

Promote Non-Violent Conflict Resolution

6. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy* to mitigate and address potential or existing conflicts arising from shifts in power relations.

Seek Sustainable Results

7. # and % of program initiatives that have a coherent strategy* to address and measure impact on the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice.

Advocacy8. # and % of program initiatives that include a specific advocacy strategy*.

Learning and Knowledge Management

9. # and % of program initiatives that have learning objectives linked to the program’s theory of change and processes in place for pursuing their learning objectives.

Program Support Indicators

Program Process1. # and % of program initiatives that apply relevant technical and project management standards adopted by CARE 2. Level of risk versus level of preparedness (DRR Scale)

Learning and Knowledge Management

1.# and % of units that show evidence that learning is being obtained and used for organizational improvement.

Resource mobilizationand finance

2. % of required program budget mobilized for the next two years

Human resources3. % staff retained across funding gaps between program initiatives

Managing the Basics

Beyond the Basics

Test CO-Level Indicators

By FY ‘09: 11 program quality indicators 3 program support indicators

By June 2008Draft set of program impact indicators related to MDGs Social Position Enabling EnvironmentPiloted by end FY ‘09

Learning & Knowledge Sharing

What is the Question to which this learning and knowledge strategy responds?

How can CARE change faster, more effectively, more consistently, and at a global level?

How can we move the program approach through the organization more quickly?

Learning & Knowledge Sharing Strategy

Key Actors for Moving Knowledge From Site to

Site

Key Learners and Testers of applicability of

Knowledge and Practice

Knowledge Sharing and Learning Processes

Learning Laboratories

• DRDs• Regional PQ Groups• Thematic Teams and Networks• CUSA global KL and OPM teams

Sites of Knowledge Generation

• LL Satellites• Other COs• CI members• Regions• Sectors• Partners

• Investment in staff• More strategic mix of learning/knowledge sharing • Better incentives to staff • Clearly defined learning objectives • New Tools and Technologies

Learning

Culture

What is a Learning Lab

Holistic change Investment in staff to for shift Investment in better knowledge products Learning culture of accepting mistakes Capacity to help others learn

What is a Satellite?

Learning relationship with learning labs Supported by global resources Engaged in programmatic shift Feed back improvements Knowledge transfer monitored

Learning Laboratories & Satellites

Country OfficeBangladeshSri LankaGeorgiaEgyptEthiopiaMaliMalawi

Region/Sub-RegionLatin America and the CaribbeanSE Asia (Laos and Vietnam)

Global ProgramsWater Sector3 Signature Programs

3 Signature Programs

Satellites (Still Not Fully Determined)

Zambia, MozambiqueNiger, Ghana

Burundi, Uganda