PROGRESS ON THE PATHWAY TOWARDS COHERENT PROGRAMMING - THE EXPERIENCE OF CARE NEPAL
Compiled by:
Rosie Thapa
(with inputs from Alka, Diawary, Karuna, Krishna, Popular and Sandesh)
CARE NEPAL
Krishna Galli, Pulchowk
Lalitpur, Nepal
Updated version February 05, 2010
i
Table of Contents
Background 1
The Program Approach and the Current Three-year Strategic Plan 2
Pathways to Coherent Long-term Programming 4
Progress Made Against the Elements of the Pathway 6
0. Preconditions 6
01. Organizational commitment at the highest level 6
02. Recognition that the shift involves all aspect of the organization, not only programs 7
A. Designing Programs 7
A0. Building internal awareness and buy-in 7
A1. Identify program themes (including impact population and target population) 8
A2. Deepen situation analysis for each program 9
A3. Design impact measurement and reflective learning system 10
A4. Define program theory of change and develop program strategies 10
B. Operationalizing Programs 11
B1. Resource mobilization 11
B2. Measure and monitor program quality and impact 11
B3. Aligning project portfolio to program: phasing out certain projects and starting new initiatives 11
B4. Change forms of relations and accountability 12
B5. Learning and reflective practices 12
C. Organizational Alignment 13
C1. Changing organizational structures, incentives and transition management 13
Annex 1. Advancing Long-Term Programming in Nepal 17
Figures:
Figure 1: Elements of a Pathway to Long-term Programming Version 1.3 (November 10, 2008) 5
Figure 2: Framework for Moving Towards a Program Approach. 15
i
Background
CARE has been working in Nepal for nearly thirty one years. Today, the fast- changing socio-political context is demanding change in the work priorities of international organizations such as CARE, where people’s raised awareness as a result of the decade-long conflict and the ‘people’s movement’ of 2006 demands increased accountability from all development actors in the country. CARE is committed to making itself relevant in the changed circumstances, recognizing that deep and lasting change requires that new and more flexible ways of working based on deeper analyses are necessary if CARE Nepal’s work is to be more effective.
The cornerstone of the three-year strategic plan (SP) for 2006-2009 was the shift to programmatic work. During the time that CARE was working on this SP and reflecting on the possibilities and challenges for transformation, opposition to the direct rule of the then-monarch was rising. This continued throughout 2005 before culminating in mass protests in April 2006 and the restoration of democracy. Throughout this period, the external situation of the country's general environment amplified the on-going discussions of how CARE needed to internalize change at the most basic level if it was to promote an impactful development process influencing poverty and social injustice in significant ways through a greater focus on rights-based and gender equitable approaches and issues of governance. What were the issues of accountability and transparency that CARE Nepal needed to work on? Was CARE Nepal ready to enable its field workers to have more responsibility and more power?
In this way, the country’s external situation was conducive to CARE Nepal’s discussion on the transformation that needed to happen if CARE Nepal was to take its work in Nepal forward, focusing on the needs, rights and issues of the poorest people, particularly women and men from groups that are discriminated against and marginalized who live in areas of extreme poverty with limited access to the means of production that could sustainably improve their lives.
Today in Nepal there is protracted political instability which has created great uncertainty about the peace process and the drafting of a new constitution. However, the opportunities for change at this time are still significant. The status quo has been up-ended, people who would not normally have a say in anything have the opportunity to put their point across. Those who would never meet otherwise are coming together in national discussion. Having seized on the chance to transform from 2005 onwards, CARE is already better able to contribute to wider change in Nepal during this time of openness and inclusion in national planning. It should be possible for CARE to utilize its considerable experience of working in the field with the country’s poorest citizens to influence change with relation to poverty and social injustice.
In order to make the transformation to an organization with its foundation based on the rights of the poorest people, CARE Nepal recognized that change was needed on two fronts at the same time: at the level of the organization on issues of accountability, transparency and decentralization of responsibility; and at the level of CARE Nepal’s work on the ground in terms of its quality and ability to bring about sustainable improvements in the lives of the poorest.
The Program Approach and the Current Three-year Strategic Plan
Out of the finalized framework for the SP 2006-2009, four areas of focus were identified within the context of the changing environment in Nepal:
· basic human rights;
· secured livelihoods;
· conflict sensitivity; and
· emergency preparedness.
Two enabling strategies were also identified to facilitate the move to coherent programming under the strategic plan: organizational transformation and diversification of funding.
The work on the SP 2006-2009 also identified initial gaps in CARE Nepal’s work. These were:
· a monitoring and evaluation system at the country level to measure progress in these emerging areas; and
· a systematic examination of issues affecting the underlying causes of poverty to look at women’s empowerment issues as a whole and deepen CARE Nepal’s work around governance and social justice.
Extensive research was carried out into the preparation and design of the strategic plan, by conducting analyses and community assessments, by taking part in donor dialogues, and by organizing staff workshops to understand the then-conflict situation in Nepal better and the emerging scenario in order to clarify the role that CARE Nepal could play.
Development efforts carried out in most developing countries have not been able to demonstrate sustainable impacts on the lives of the poorest. Unfortunately, often programs have not been able to reach the poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable and the socially excluded because of systemic structural and societal barriers.
Why the program approach?
The traditional short-term project approach does not work for long enough and at a deep enough level to address the root causes of poverty. Traditional project-based work carries the risk of multiple projects doing the same – or conflicting – work, with the learning from these projects being lost after the life of the project is over. To have lasting impact at a broad scale on the deep-rooted causes of poverty and social injustice, CARE must work at a deep level on poverty-affected population groups and respond to the shifting nature and complexity of poverty. The poverty-affected population or group must be defined based on an analysis of the underlying causes of poverty.
Most project efforts have gone into addressing the symptoms of poverty. CARE has made a deliberate choice to use the program approach in addressing the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice. It will use the individual projects as vehicles to reach the impact goal it has set up for itself. In addition, promoting the program approach in Nepal pushes CARE to build new alliances and partnerships with key stakeholders.
The program approach enables critical identification of the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice, thereby working on the root causes. This requires changed organizational set-up and thinking.
As part of CARE's work on the program approach, a definition of what the institution means by 'a program' was arrived at. In April 2008 a workshop in Istanbul agreed on the definition of a program as,
‘…a coherent set of initiatives that involves a long-term commitment to specific marginalized and vulnerable groups (going) beyond the scope of projects to achieve positive changes in human conditions, in social positions and in the enabling environment.”[1]
Within this definition is the idea that a program’s boundaries are not defined by geography or by a country office, because a ‘program’ revolves around a specific poverty-affected population group or a particular issue. Working at the rights level requires work to be done across a wide range of issues, and these issues may be common to different programs. Such connectivity is intrinsic to the program approach and is one of its great strengths.
Of course, shifting to a program approach is not a simple undertaking. All practices in all units across the whole organization have to change. A significant amount of effort has gone into working on the characteristics of a program by the PIKL (Program Impact knowledge and Learning) Alliance, CARE USA, the discussion being guided by the question, 'What is different about a program approach from the way CARE has been conventionally implementing projects?'
These resulting characteristics were defined as follows.
1. A clearly defined goal for impact on the live of a specific group, realized at broad scale (at least at national scale or for a whole marginalized population group)
2. A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty and social injustice at multiple levels (meaning community through to global) 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 enables CARE and its allies 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 of social change through 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 to maximize change on a broader scale
8. Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders
Pathways to Coherent Long-term Programming
The elements that have been identified as necessary to undertake the programmatic approach were developed using an analysis of work that different 'Learning Labs' (that is, country offices that are piloting the program approach) had carried out. The programmatic approach is not a linear process, and the specific sequence by which CARE would undertake these elements of the pathway will only be clear after significant parts of the change process have been completed.
Figure 1 is a tool being used to establish a common language for the work that is being carried out on each element so that communication with those working on each element is easier. It is a high-level 'snap-shot' of the main elements of work that need to move forward in order to shift to a long-term programmatic approach. The narrative following Figure 1 describes the links of the work done in CARE Nepal on these elements.[2]
17
Figure 1: Elements of a Pathway to Long-term Programming Version 1.3 (November 10, 2008)
0. Preconditions
A. Designing Program B. Operationalizing Program
C. Organizational Alignment
17
Progress Made Against the Elements of the Pathway
So how is CARE Nepal navigating towards this new approach, what are the in-roads that it has made so far, and what are the challenges it still faces?
CARE Nepal has carried out extensive and detailed work on its move towards a program approach and is excited by the opportunity to use its practical experience of working to end poverty to bring about broader change at all levels: nationally, within the Asia region, and at the global level. The spirit of openness to change and inclusion that it is hoped will characterize the constitution writing process in Nepal presents a great opportunity to influence change. CARE Nepal is aware of the challenges that it will have to face while transforming itself to the program approach. The challenge lies in demonstrating the added value of promoting the program approach versus projects, amidst donors, government agencies and civil society. The nature of partnerships will also need to be modified, where more and more long-term strategic linkages with issue-based organizations, networks and federations will be strengthened.
0. Preconditions
01. Organizational commitment at the highest level
Staff at all levels of the organization have demonstrated a high level of leadership and commitment to carrying out the required changes.
At the level of the Organizational Management Team (OMT) this has been evidenced by the following actions:
i. Embarking on a courageous organizational realignment process
ii. Decentralization of decision-making authority to the field level
iii. Asia Regional Management Unit (ARMU) Regional Director learning visit along with three other country directors (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal) for emerging coherent programming initiatives
02. Recognition that the shift involves all aspect of the organization, not only programs
It was acknowledged that the success of the areas of focus identified would, to a great degree, be dependent on realigning the structure and system of the organization; and that the most important part of restructuring was to decentralize the decision-making process close to the target groups through the devolution of authority.
It was during the review of the SP in 2006, where organizational realignment issues were further reflected upon, that the idea of the ‘cluster’ approach was formed. A cluster is a group of projects under a program that has as its scope of work a specific poverty-affected population group or issue. Currently, projects in a cluster of districts and having overlapping areas (village development committees) are defined as a cluster.