1. ® © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Ubora Organizational Performance and learning 8 July 2008 WARMU

2. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. What is Ubora? Swahili word for Excellence CAREs Organizational Performance and Learning System Framework uniting program and program support used for ongoing, systematic measurement of performance at all levels of the organization Promotes organizational learning and accountability

3. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. What is good performance for CARE? Operations Culture Structure Strategy All aspects of the organization (culture, strategy, structure, operations) are working efficiently and effectively to achieve measurable, long-term sustainable progress toward our vision. And other stakeholders believe this is true, particularly the poor themselves.

4. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Components of Good Performance PROGRAM QUALITY PROGRAM SUPPORT IMPACT The accumulated impact of our work shows evidence of lasting broad scale change Effectively and efficiently managing key resources and conducting operations in a way that contributes to program quality and impact achievements Evidence that our programs incorporate our principles, adhere to standards, and contribute to desired impacts

5. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Continuous Learning & Improvement Analysis & Reports Targets ndicators Key Processes of Ubora Accountability and Recognition

6. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Why measure? Balance current focus on financials and reward staff for achieving program quality and impact Bring together program and program support More informed decision-making and planning Start looking at work more holistically and strategically beyond the project level and encourage the shift to programs Start looking at CARE at a global level beyond individual COs

7. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. CO Indicators: Managing the Basics All COs, HQ, RMUs, Global in FY09 Drawing from existing systems Basic indicators Primarily program support Procurement, Audit Basic project management (PMSI) and risk preparedness

8. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. CO Indicators: Beyond the Basics Learning Labs FY09 More robust indicators, tied to the shift to a programmatic approach More indicators on processes for program quality Eventually measuring impact Learning labs will inform the rest of CARE

9. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Measures of Program Quality That measure the degree of incorporation and/or effectiveness of CI programming principles Promote empowerment Work with partners etc. Other key strategies/hypotheses Learning and knowledge management Resource mobilization Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Preparedness Adherence to project and technical standards Vision Programming Principles Core Guidelines CI Project Standards Sector/technical guidelines

10. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Key Definitions: Program Initiative A set of coherent activities with a final goal and one or more programmatic objectives, and which has specific resources (human, financial, etc.) available to achieve the objectives and contribute to the attainment of the goal. May be project-based or non-project based initiatives

11. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Pilot set of Quality Indicators Managing the Basics; Program Process 1. # 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) Promote Empowerment 3. # 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 4. # of strategic partnerships and alliances (non-project; non-contract specific) in place. Ensure Accountability and Promote Responsibility 5. # and % program initiatives that have a functioning system in place to be held accountable by participants and civil society. 6. # and % program initiatives that have a clear approach for compelling those with responsibilities toward poor and marginalized people to fulfill their obligations. Address Discrimination 7. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy for opposing discrimination and promoting equity, in particular gender equity.

12. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Pilot set of Quality Indicators Promote Non- Violent Conflict Resolution 8. # 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 9. # and % of program initiatives that have a coherent strategy* to address and measure impact on the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice. Advocacy 10. # and % of program initiatives that include a specific advocacy strategy*. Learning and Knowledge Management 11. # and % of program initiatives that have learning objectives linked to the programs theory of change and processes in place for pursuing their learning objectives.

13. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Program Support+ Indicators Learning and Knowledge Management 1. # and % of units that show evidence that learning is being obtained and used for organizational improvement. Resource mobilization and finance 2. % of required program budget mobilized for the next two years Human resources 3. % staff retained across funding gaps between program initiatives

14. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Minimum Definition for Indicator Relevant staff has been trained in power and gender analysis. Power and gender analysis (needs an operational definition) has been done. A specific change has been identified and activities developed that target all three aspects of CAREs unifying framework. Mechanism for reviewing accuracy of the power and gender analysis and for revising actions identified is in place. The change in power relations is measured. 1. # and % of program initiatives that have deliberate strategies to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women.

15. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Instrument to Collect Indicator Data Indicator 1. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women. 1.1 Describe what you are doing to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups, in particular women. In particular, please describe which parts of the unifying framework – human conditions, social positions, the enabling environment – you are addressing. 1.2 In what ways are specific marginalized groups being empowered by this strategy? What evidence – qualitative or quantitative, anecdotal or rigorous, formal or informal – do you have that marginalized and excluded groups, particularly women, are being empowered? 1.3 What has been successful and what has been difficult? 1.4 How could the program be improved in order to better incorporate this principle? 1.5. Please assign a numerical rating for the extent to which your program initiative has a deliberate strategy to shift power relations and to empower specific marginalized and excluded groups. (See rating criteria below) 0 1 2 3 4 5 1.6 Please assign a numerical rating for the extent to which your program initiative has a deliberate strategy to empower women. (See rating criteria below.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0=None of the criteria of a deliberate strategy to shift power relations (see operational definition) is met 1=At least 1 of the criteria has been fully met 2=At least 2 of the criteria have been fully met 3=At least 3 of the criteria have been fully met 4=At least 4 of the criteria have been fully met 5=At least 5 of the criteria have been fully met 6=All 6 of the criteria have been fully met

16. ® © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Program Impact Measurement

17. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Definition of Impact Long-term and sustainable social change that happens at systemic and structural levels and addresses underlying causes of poverty for a specific group of people

18. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Short-comings of DM&E system Typical systems in CARE tend to: Seldom be used beyond donor reporting. Generate a LOT of data that is never analyzed. Engage in single loop learning and not on testing hypothesis. Not conducive to understanding social change processes. Be good at measuring outputs and outcomes.

19. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Key Elements Across long periods of time (10-15 years) Beyond the output and outcome level to the impact level. Across both project and non-project activities. Cross-cutting themes as well as main program foci. Outcomes and impacts across at least a minimum set of constant indicators. Both CAREs contribution as well as attribution Allows the testing of the theory of change (ToC) rather then just verifying outcomes.

20. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Changes in Knowledge Hierarchy Knowledge Hierarchy

21. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.

22. Program Indicators: MDI Plus Millennium Development Indicators (MDIs) can be internally consistent and externally translatable Overcome shortcomings by adapting and adding measures at the target level Also have additional indicators social position enabling environment

23. © 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved. Process of Selecting MDI + Selection through testing a draft list of indicators in Learning Labs by: Select the marginalized and excluded groups Adjust the ratios and numbers of the MDI Develop guidance on the methods and process for measurement and analysis Learning labs will then test the impact measurement component of Ubora Refined and verified indicators used in rest of the organization.