AFTF Conference Call Notes(version 120725)
Date: July 24, 2012
Agenda:
- Links to organizational models
- Feedback from POC and standing team
- More feedback from tests
- Next steps (including which annexed guidelineswill be developed)
Participants: Doris Bartel, Gillian Barth, Mike Fuhrer, Jay Goulden, Peter Newsum, Sarah Ralston, Andrew Rowell, Claudia Sanchez Manrique, Sofia Sprechmann, Tonka Eibs, Deborah Underdown, Chris Williams, Lora Wuennenberg, Sarah Lynch, Marcy Vigoda, Jock Baker
Apologies: Brian Agland, Frank Lausten, Uwe Korus, Andrea Rodericks, Peter Leahy
Action Points:- Marcy will raise question with Excom about whether the pace of the development of the Accountability Framework can be accelerated from a “country road speed limit” and given a higher priority.
- Marcy and Gillian will propose includingthe AF into SWAT 2 TOR so as to link into organizational model and governance
- Marcy will organize the next AFTF conference call during the last half of August.
- Chris will contribute two components to theAF annex providing guidance on management of risk;operational risk and do-no-harm (risk at a community level).
- Sarah will share experiences from CARE WBG relevant to the AF.
- Jock will revise the AF two-pager based on feedback from the POC, Standing Team, etc. and also “transform” the HAF into an annex to help CARE staff engaged in humanitarian operations put the AF into practice.
Summary of Discussion
1)New AFTF members: Marcy welcomed new AFTF members Sophia Sprechmann (CI Program Director), Tonka Eibs (CARE Osterreich), Mike Fuhrer (CARE USA, replacing Jeff Yaschik), Sarah Lynch (Advocacy, CARE USA)
2)Links to organizational models and how AF fits with the 2020 vision:
a)It was noted that accountability and the AF features prominently in papers reviewed by the CI Board during their recent meeting in June.
b)Given this focus, Jay asked whether it was still appropriate that CIcontinue (at a relatively slow pace) along a “country road”, or do we need to step onto the autobahn and speed up the development of the AF? Marcy agreed to consult with the ExCom on whether to accelerate progress, including a proposal to transform it into a useful pilot version with the addition of relevant guidelines.
3)Sophia provided feedback from the POC meeting. Overall it was felt that the AF provided a good framework and process to have a meaningful dialogue about accountability, notably to
a)Identify ways we the POC can fulfil our CI rolemore effectively.
b)Communicate with wider organisation to facilitate decision-making.
c)Connect more explicitly what we do in POC and what we aim to achieve.
The POC however didn’t particularly like the paragraph on partners since they felt it put all responsibility with CARE, whereas there should be two-way accountability between CARE and our partners.
Peter noted that he was a bit sceptical initially about how useful the AF was, but in the end found it a very helpful tool in bringing important issues on the table to understand who we actually represent and how we communicate with our stakeholders.
d)The POC agreed to follow up to:
i)Support the work of the AFTF
ii)Develop a more user-friendly version of the AF to be able to use more widely and tying with the organisational model dialogue.
Jock noted that feedback has suggested that it’s now timely to start developing guidelines for staff working in different functional areas in CARE to help them comply with the AF. These would be annexes to the two-page AF and be complimented by other relevant annexes, notably risk management guidance.
4)Feedback from the Standing Teamworkshop was summarized by Sarah Ralston, who had co-facilitated the session on the AF the previous week.
a)CARE’s Standing Team of deployable Quality & Accountability Specialists did a similar exercise to the POC and then develop a guidance note for testing the AF since our role is often to provide training in the AF.
b)A lot of gaps in orientation around the AF testing. The AF doesn’t currently say anything about acting on feedback received. What about stakeholders who not on the list? Do we really need to list all the functions in CARE? Need more detail about risk management. Recognize that with supplementary guidance (AF annexes), can explain this better. Sarah has started re-writing the partnership paragraph.
c)A question arose when the AF is applied to CO since there are a lot of functions within the system of analysis. What does it mean for those who are not listed as stakeholders? What role does the Standing Team or a body like the POC have in demonstrating impact when our role is improving it? Are all processes and enablers applicable to all staff? Found the AF still quite focused on program, not so much on program support. John Hoare led another session during the ST workshop to look how program support could contribute to theHAF which highlighted several areas for further inquiry. Sarah facilitated similar discussions in CARE WBG between program and program support staff which helped clear the air and better define roles and responsibilities.
d)Implementation of AF – it will be important not to give the impression that the AF is overlaying other stuff. Suggest mapping existing systems and processes to support, rather than overlay. Clarification about application ofthe AF (unit of analysis) and how we apply itshould be done soon. CARE Peru provides a good model of developing and rolling out an AF, but Claudia cautioned that it was difficult to put everything in place at once.
5)Feedback from AF tests:
a)Sarah described how CARE WBG has been using the AF to help frameCARE’s role in WBG and define our operational model. Based on the WBG experience, she recommended similar use of the AF in other country review processes. They’ve found the AF processes useful to resolve tensions between partner approaches and compliance requirements. The AF is also helpful in integrated code of conducts into HR processes. CARE WBG has built questions about gender equity and partnership into interviews for applicants.
b)Claudia recommended using lessons from CARE Peru’s accountability framework experience[1].
c)Gillian suggested that SWAT 2 recommend how AF stacks up with the organizational framework.
d)Deborah briefly described CARE UK’stest with the media/comm. The main feedback was that it seemed very program-focused and compliance would mean that CARE needed to address the apparent lack ofinformation about impact.
e)Sofia noted that Ximena Echeverria, who is a Standing Team member, has been recently appointed as Project Manager for the Project/Program Information and Impact Reporting System (PIIRS) and understands the link with the AF.
[1] A case study for Peru’s experience in developing an accountability framework was included with this note.