Eastern and Central Africa

REPORT OF THE

EASTERN AND CENTRAL AFRICA

REGIONAL PROGRAM QUALITY GROUP FORUM

2nd MEETING

Situational Analysis for the Purpose of Program Design

BUJUMBURA, BURUNDI

OCTOBER 11-13, 2009

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3

Part I: CO & CI Members Sharing Experiences with PShift & PQ Plans…………..4

Where are we in PShift Process & Country Offices Share Experiences……..4

CARE Rwanda’s Experience……………………………………………………4

CARE South Sudan’s Experience………………………………………………5

CARE Uganda’s Experience…………………………………………………….6

CARE Ethiopia’s Experience……………………………………………………7

Questions & Clarifications Raised by Group Following Presentations………7

Part II: Situational Analysis: Preparing Ourselves to Intervene in Social Change....8

Discussion & Feedback Following Michael’s Presentation……………………9

Situational UCP/V Analysis in Northern Uganda……………………………10

Presentation by Burundi on its UCP/V Analysis Work……………………...13

Feedback following Burundi’s Presentation………………………………….14

Field Work………………………………………………………………………15

CARE Burundi’s Feedback to Collective UCP/V Exercise………………….16

Synthesis Discussion concerning Situational & UCP/V Analysis……………18

Part III: DRR Mainstreaming in Programs…………………………………………..21

DRR Role in P-shift Presentation……………………………………………...21

CO Experiences with DRR……………………………………………………..23

Part IV: P-Shift and Program Support: from Tension to Synergy, How?...... 24

Part V: Feedback to RLT Meeting……………………………………………………25

Part VI: Next Steps…………………………………………………………………….25

Annexes:

Annex 1: RLT and RPQG Participant List

Annex 2: RPQG Agenda

Annex 3: CARE Rwanda P-Shift Experience

Annex 4: CARE South Sudan P-Shift Experience

Annex 5: CARE Uganda P-Shift Experience

Annex 6: CARE Ethiopia P-Shift Experience

Annex 7: Situational Analysis Presentation

Annex 8: CARE Burundi P-Shift Experience

Annex 9: UCPV Field Work Group Findings

Annex 10: UCPV Presentation

Annex 11: DRR Mainstreaming in Programs

Annex 12: DRR across P-Shift

Annex 13: CO Experiences with DRR

Annex 14: ACD Feedback to RLT

Introduction

The 2ndEastern and Central African Regional Program Quality Forum took place in Bujumbura, Burundi in early October 2009. It brought together a wide range of staff, particularly program staff, from all countries in the region, as well as a number of CI members (refer to Annex 1 for full participants list).

The main theme of this forum was to exchange our experiences and challenges around situational analysis for our new programs. After sharing brief updates on CO PQ plans and P-shift progress, we discussedour respective work on Situational Analysis and Underlying Causes of Poverty and Vulnerability Analysis, going deeper into understanding the process in Northern Uganda. We also conducted field visit research to test some of the focus group guidelines designed by CARE Burundi to understand more about Governance and how it affects their impact groups, as part of their situational analysis efforts. We also discussed the role of Disaster Risk Reduction in the Program Approachand discussed interfacing with Program Support(refer to Annex 2 for the final workshop agenda).This report provides a summary of the main discussions hosted at the meeting.

PART I - CO AND CI MEMBERS SHARING EXPERIENCES WITH PSHIFT AND PQ PLANS

Following a Gallery Walk during which CO and CI members shared their experiences of the last 6 months with P-shift and PQ plans, a plenary discussion ensued.

Participants share and discuss progress & challenges with P-shift and PQ plans

Key feedback included:

We are increasingly confronted by the fact that the traditional organizational structure we use(around sectors) in our COsis very siloed and does not support the Program Approach;
We tend to define our impact groups and plan future program work based on the portfolio and target groups we already have, and not sufficiently based on “fresh” analysis of poverty and vulnerability in the country;
We sometimes struggle with determining the point at whichwe should stop researching (i.e. investigating impact groups and UCP/V) and move forward with the next steps of the program design process.We forget that we can use the program itself for further analysis. Different COs have different perspectives on when we should stop researching and this will be the main topic of this workshop;
Even if longer term programs we are in the process of designing are holistic, we need to ensure that we choose achievable and clear, measurable impact indicators;
When we start situational analysis and UCP/V work we uncover many different facets and issues about our impact groups. We must go back and refine the impact groups throughout the process.
This P-shift process is an opportunity for COs to redefine their strategic directions and/or to investigate the extent to which they are addressing UCP/V. CI members are helping COs with this work.
COs have not yet extensively thought about how best to link the program approach with strategic plans of CI members. COs are not yet fully collaborating with CI members to define programs and strategize.
This is not to suggest that CI members should skew COs’ analysis, but that the members’ challenge is to ensure they are listening, in sync with, and identifying synergies with what COs and CI members’ interests are. Need to look at how we reconcile agendas of CO and CI members if they are not in line with one another.
Country Offices are dealing with different timeframes. Some are discussing strategic plans and programs for 5 years, others are planning for the next 10-15 years. CO timeframes are often variable depending on the political contexts within their respective countries. As we look at longer time frames we should be privy to potential changes in context and the effects on our impact groups and sub-groups.
We cannot forget about the staff reorganization involved in P-shift efforts. It does not seem as though many COs are reflecting this aspect in their planning or thinking yet. As we move along the program design process, we need to start thinking much more deliberately about the implications of the program approach on our systems and structures, both in program and in program support.

Where are we in the Pshift Process? Country Offices Share Experiences

CARE-Rwanda’s Experience(refer to Annex 3 for presentation)

CARE-Rwanda has begun implementing its’ LRSP (2008-2015) and has committed to begin work with the program approach. Four preliminary impact groups have been identified: OVC ages 0-7; OVC ages 7-18; vulnerable women; historically marginalized people. A Theory of Change was developed for these impact groups, based on the CO’s experiential knowledge of these groups, that described domains and pathways. The next step will be for Rwanda to conduct a UCP/V Analysis, to then choose only 2 or 3 final impact groups and to refine TOCs based on situational analysis findings. Consultant Tom Barton and a group from the CO are charged with conducting this desk review.

The CO made the decision with regards to the LRSP design to first define impact groups before finalizing indicators. Many of these indicators are complicated and some have not yet been tested. It was noted that this is a learning process and that it will take time for staff to change their mindsets. CARE-Rwanda has been especially emphasizing staff awareness of the P-shift and has hosted discussions with Program Support so that they can better support the long-term process.

Rwanda has recently taken on a number of non-traditional projects that move its’ work away from issues related to the human condition and instead focus on issues related to behavior change and enabling environment conditions. As such, the CO is beginning to look at evolving staff skills required.

Rwanda has also been involved in a gender analysis of 4 projects and, with the support of CARE-UK, a baseline analysis on governance. The results of these efforts will help better define impact groups and sub-groups.

CARE-South Sudan’s Experience(refer to Annex 4 for presentation)

South Sudan has just recently developed its first ever five-year LRSP. While circumstances remain difficult, the CO is finding it valuable to have this direction and plan for the future. Two impact groups were identified: “rural women” and “male youth.”

As part of the development of the plan, an analysis was done which looked at planning for the worst case scenario where South Sudan relapses into war and CARE must reposition itself. The Country Office engaged key stakeholders throughout these analyses. A key observation highlighting the extent to which South Sudan remains “gender blind” is the frequency with which partners asked why CARE was talking about gender and women in these analyses.

This latest plan differs from the pre-existing plan, which was in place between 2002 and 2007, in that it is a South Sudan-specific plan and it is geared towards development whilst retaining emergency response capacity. The Country Office has historically been very sector-focused and, to the extent possible in this context, has started to appreciate the thinking around longer term focus on impact groups. The CO has found it very helpful to discuss issues of governance, inequalities, conflict, etc. as it moves forward. It has not yet identified exactly what it will do for the impact groups. Increasingly the CO is recognizing that it cannot do everything as CARE must work more with stakeholders and partners.

CARE-Uganda’s Experience(refer to Annex 5for presentation)

CARE-Uganda has been working with the Program Approach particularly through its work with natural resources management for a while now. Natural resources management serves as a strong entry point for good governance.

The identified impact group is poor, natural resource dependent households. This impact group has proved to be problematic at times because the communities chosen for this program may not be the most poor, but are those that are most immediately and drastically affected by natural resource usage. Civil society strengthening is necessary for the results that are hoped for with regards to governance and advocacy work. It is noted that civil society strengthening is an end within itself in this program.

Within this impact group, there is a sub-group which is a well defined, poor group which has many needs within a specific geographical area. This group is viewed and approached as an impact group and whatever is perceived as important/needed for them is what CARE tries to provide them.

There has not yet been a formal UCP/V analysis and the CO has in the past assumed that it already knew the needs of the people. The CO is hoping to simultaneously address poverty, natural resource degradation, and poor governance. More work needs to be done to address issues related to discrimination, gender, lack of land and population growth. Efforts from other sectors should be pulled into current activities. It would be very beneficial if other CARE projects could contribute expertise and technical assistance to the work with this group.

The CO still needs to develop a Theory of Change for this IG. This will help the CO be more strategic rather than trying to respond to all the IG’s needs as mentioned earlier.

There is little ownership yet within CARE Uganda over the program approach. While some staff are “converted” and committed to the P-shift, not all CARE staff is on board. There are valid reasons to be skeptical and to hold concerns. Also practically speaking, the way that the CO hires and recruits is very project and job-specific. As it makes this shift, the CO has not yet gone back and revised JDs and APAAs, etc. The CO needs to look at its business model for recruiting and hiring more closely.

There is a lot of fear among staff in terms of job security with the reorganization that requires staff restructuring. It is possible that the CO will be able to ensure longer-term security for jobs as we restructure but this has not been fully thought through nor communicated. On the other hand, new jobs may require different skills and this may result in staff layoffs.

CARE Ethiopia’s Experience (refer to Annex6 for presentation)

CARE Ethiopia has identified 3 impact groups and has completed its PQ baseline assessment. It has done a desk review and UCP/V assessment in seven districts with strategic partners. The UCP/V analysis was completed for two Impact Groups using the UF with the acknowledgement that continual reassessment will be required. Feedback has been gathered and validation workshops held. Initial discussions have been facilitated regarding what organizational structuring and staffing might look like. Discussions have also been held surrounding how best to capture and incorporate emergency response into Program Approach planning.

Generally, staff is supportive of the P-shift concept. However, there is not necessarily a complete understanding among staff about the implications of the shift yet. Some key people are not fully on board and there are capacity limitations in terms of comprehensive, deep analysis. Staff is learning throughout this process.

With competing priorities, the UCP/V assessment has taken longer than anticipated and the CO is still struggling to know when sufficient research and analysis has been done.

The CO plans to form program design teams, define a program statement, and develop its ToC for the different programs. Throughout the process, the CO plans to continue discussing implications on organizational structure and systems.

Questions & Clarifications raised by the group following the presentations:

Are we expecting that COs will make radical changes in structure, such as in the case of Mali where the number of staff was reduced from 350 to 85 in order for implementation to be done mostly through partnerships?

Are we expecting our COs to be accountable to making this shift? We have to be realistic about the resources we have. If there are insufficient resources, we have to continue to raise funds to keep the COs alive. How can we, as a group, better advocate that even with a small amount of money we can achieve what we strive for?

Is it problematic that we still have this sector approach in areas we know what we are good at and what donors like?

Will this approach allow us to have the most impact by working with the poorest of the poor? Are there other groups we need to engage more strongly?

Do we focus on what we know and are good at? How can we best focus on areas that are identified as necessary in our TOCs? How do we best focus on good governance and advocacy?

We need to avoid stretching ourselves too thin.

At times there are frustrations in setting very high goals for ourselves. We need to continue to recognize the small steps with which we are making progress along the way in order to encourage ourselves. These small steps are significant and necessary along this long journey towards the Program Approach.

We need to be sure to document the process, especially with the constant changes in staffing and projects. We very often lose institutional memory with such frequent turnover.

CARE alone cannot (and should not) do all! We must work with stakeholders and partners!

Our Theory of Change does not mean:Social Position (1) x Human Condition (1) x Enabling Environment (1) = Overarching Theme. Rather, our Theory of Change means that we should take into account all three domains of change, but not necessarily with a 1:1 ratio. Our analysis will determine on what our TOC should focus; based on the context, we may need to focus much more on some aspects of CARE’s UF than on others.

PART II – SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS: PREPARING OURSELVES TO INTERVENE IN SOCIAL CHANGE

Though Part I of the workshop already allowed participants to share some of their experiences around situational analysis, Part II of the workshop allowed the discussion to more greatly focus on situational analysis. Michael Drinkwater shared strategies for how we research and plan for social change (refer to Annex 7 for full presentation). Key points included:

The business of social change is messy, complex and unpredictable. It is not always easy to know how exactly change happens.So how do we try and tip the scales in the direction of greater justice, rights, and opportunities for all? Do we? How often? What more usually happens?

A great deal of change is unexpected, rather than predicted.

In order to “stay in business,” we need to have Theories of Change—and the ability to put them into practice, learn and adapt!

There are three types of (good) change:
Emergent: ‘We make our path by walking it’ (Understand the existing institutions and forces for change)
Transformative: ‘Through crisis and unlearning’ (Seeing crisis as opportunity)
Programmable: ‘Working with a plan (or rather pathways)’ (Learning how to use vision)

To interconnect the three, we need to stay alive to the movement of change—a challenge to keep reading the situation and adjusting our practice accordingly (which is the basis for our Theories of Change). We must also endlessly look for opportunities and allies, making use of the unexpected.

It is critical to remember our work is founded upon relationships and, therefore, the quality of those relationships is of fundamental importance to what can be achieved.The quality of information (and hence, the kinds of knowledge we can then generate) is proportional to the quality of the interaction that takes place in its production, processing and consumption.

We must try to:
Understand history (behavior is rooted in it), look for trends
Understand the difference between what people say and what they do (knowledge, attitudes, practices)
Not look for linear causation; but rather look for barriers, tensions, issues
Understand how decisions are made
Explore the room for maneuver
Use participatory analysis as the platform for action—always look for opportunities to address the barriers, issues, inequalities
Look for champions (allies)—individuals and organizations
Remember that there is no perfect analysis—we must refine TOC over time

Discussion and Feedback Following Michael’s Presentation:

Eastern and Central Africa

Contents

Introduction