1. CARE Tanzania The Courage to Lead Building a whole greater than the sum of parts Operationalization of the Program Approach Michael Drinkwater and Diana Wu 25 February 2011

2. Visit objectives Documentation and analysis of P-Shift Support next steps of operationalization Identify implications of the Program Approach for CARE International Apply lessons learnt from CARE Tanzania for broader guidance related to P-Shift

3. Tanzania Context Within the region, represents stability Increasingly investment friendly Axes of international interest –Conservation and climate change –Natural resources and extraction –Poverty alleviation, development Greater insecurity of livelihoods Ineffective policy implementation and low accountability in governance –Among lowest progress in MGD indicators within region

4. Context of CARE Tanzania BEGINNINGS: Started working in Tanzania in 1994, in response to refugees from Burundi EXPANSION: Expanding portfolio $4 million - $16 million over past 4 years, and growing P-SHIFT: Initiated the P2P process 15 months ago –3 IGs, modeled from the Signature Programs (Access Africa, Power Within, Mothers Matter) –Revised December 2010  1 IG

5. Timeline of Development Refugee response Relief organization 1994 Livelihood security Rights-based approaches 1999 Focus on UCPs Analyses, partners, mobilizing Sector approach 2003 Signature Programs 3 IGs Wezesha Program Approach 2008 /09 Merger to 1 IG Technical Units, team leaders, Program Offices 2010 - Natural resources, Envir. - Education - Health/ Social Protection - WE/ Microfinance + policy analysis/advocacy + good governance + active citizenship - Agriculture, NRE and CC - Economic Development and WE - Education - Maternal Health/SRHR + Governance, policy/advocacy + Gender - Program driven organization - Empowerment approach - Institutionalize reflective learning practice - Influence national policies and systems - enabling program support systems

6. ENVISIONING THE FUTURE CARE Tanzania in five years

7. Structures Systems Well-defined, matured, functioning (PO, TU) Team leader coordinating initiatives effectively Technical Units gain experience, effective Smooth collaboration between teams and with partners Impact measurement system in place and ready to apply (indicators, methods) PS delivers quality and timely reporting (finance) Sub-grant policy builds on partner systems for reporting Ways of Working Movement toward indirect implementation Facilitate CSOs, CBOs communities in scale-up, implementation Supports government to translate policy to action Advocacy, technical support Policy influencing and networking – engaged more in debates, agenda setting, packaging arguments/ documenting evidence Reflecting and challenging self more on effectiveness to test/develop models and share learning Focused on quality (smaller?) Depth (focused on IG) over breadth Working in all levels to influence policy/practice based on lessons Exploring/Experimenting with new ways of securing funds (basket-funds?) Make best practices known – capitalize on what we have achieved Relations, Reputation Better rapport with partners and government and communities (no longer increasing dependency or demands on government w/o support) Positioned to influence government and communities Relation with government to balance engagement and confrontation (support capacities and challenge) Collaborating with government to hand over initiatives Collaborations with CSOs and CBOs for government accountability Effective engagement of government to take key models to scale (MF) Known for empowering women/girls, ally to poor/marginalized - niche partner of choice: flexible systems, active allies for social change, do not micromanage partners Quality and value of work (cost- effective, benefits leveraged) Visionary and innovative: a knowledge and learning based organization ( New partners for this vision?) Achievements Demonstrated results of models as well as effective use/management of resources Able to distill and apply lessons learnt, manage knowledge Advocate effectively with donors to support CARE Tanzania’s vision on how to work with impact Better positioned for sustainable impact Making a visible difference, and able to track/ communicate it.

8. Burning Questions, Concerns the donor environment Changing donor environment? Changing CARE environment? Can CARE Tanzania change its core business in a sustainable manner, whilst time-bound projects remain primary source of funding? –Are there alternatives for resource acquisition apart from the ‘business as usual’ means of working and raising funds (that can comprise quality)? Without thinking bigger, we mold ourselves around donors demands. How to push toward developing our own identity, coupled with what is desirable for donors?

9. Key Questions 1.Operationalizing strategy -Implementing a single program -Geographic integrity -Model development 2.Finance and donor marketing 3.Aligning structures 4.Impact monitoring and learning 5.Communicating the P-Shift 6.Role of partners and partnerships

10. OPERATIONALIZING STRATEGY role of the LRSP, implementing a single program, roles of the Program Offices and Technical Units, Signature Programs, model development, developing synergies

11. Relation to LRSP LRSP Principles 1.Become a program-driven organization 2.Promote empowerment approaches 3.Institutionalize a culture of reflective learning/practice 4.Influence national policies and systems 5.Build enabling program supportive systems Original LRSP TOC now replaced by new TOC –Difference: Sub-impact groups replace the 3 IGs, and more focus on geographic integrity/ coherence

12. Agriculture & forest dependent Mining & industry dependent or living adjacent to Fisheries dependent Pastoralist & Agro- pastoralist Girls aged 7-14 years old (in and out of school) Adolescence Adulthood (married women and female heads of HH) Life cycle/stage Livelihood North-western zone Lake zone Mid-central zone East coast zone Southern zone Geographic area Sub-impact groups IMPACT GROUP: Marginalized and vulnerable women and girls living in rural underserved and environmentally restricted areas at critical life stages + Technical Units Girls’ education and leadership Maternal/SRH Econ. dev &WE NRE & CC + Cross-cutting Themes Governance and policy/advocacy Gender Current Program

13. Gender Governance & Policy Advocacy MV women & girls Geographic area Girl’s Education & Leadership Economic Development & WE Maternal & SRH Natural Resources & Climate Change

14. WHO? Livelihood System Agriculture & forest dependent Mining & industry dependent or living adjacent to Fisheries dependent Pastoralist & Agro-pastoralist Life cycle/stage Girls aged 7-14 years old (in and out of school) Adolescents Adulthood (married women and female HH heads WHERE? IG Definition Rural Underserved Environmentally restricted areas Geographic area Northwestern Zone Lake Zone Mid-center Zone East Coast Zone Southern Zone WHAT TO DO? HOW? Technical Units Girls’ education and leadership Maternal/SRH Econ. dev &WE NRE & CC Cross-cutting Themes Governance and policy/advocacy Gender Key Questions

15. REGIONS Girls’ education and leadership Sexual/Reproductive Health Rights Economic development and WE THEMES/TECHNICAL AREAS NRM and Climate Change Governance, policy/ advocacy Gender (GED) Agric. & forest Mining industry FishingPastoral North-west Mid-central East coast South Lake SUB-IMPACT GROUPS across livelihoods and age groups G A W G A W EMERGING MODELS FOR GIRLS (and ADOLESCENTS?) Girls’ Leadership model (mentors, self-esteem) FOR WOMEN VSLA: Linked with gender issues, SRH training CROSSCUTTING - GOVERNANCE Community-based government accountability and participation model

16. KAHAMA GirlsAdol.Wom. Edu, Lead.   SRHR  Econ, WE  Agr. NRMCC Gov Gender Legend  = Projects focused on IG * = Pastoralist-specific interventions KASULU/KIGOMA GirlsAdol.Wom. Edu, Lead.  SRHR  Econ, WE  Agr. NRMCC  Gov Gender MOROGORO (MVOMERO, GirlsAdol.Wom. Edu, Lead. **** SRHR Econ, WE  Agr. NRMCC    Gov Gender WASH, Pastoral rights ** MWANZA GirlsAdol.Wom. Edu, Lead. SRHR   Econ, WE  Agr. NRMCC Gov  Gender ZANZIBAR GirlsAdol.Wom. Edu, Lead. SRHR Econ, WE Agr. NRMCC  Gov Gender Layering all themes in all areas for all sub- groups = a big undertaking, responsibility & investment

17. Operationalizing the TOC - 1 Moving from 3 IGs (and programs) to 1 has substantial implications for the CO -Roles of Technical Units changes dramatically (management  strategic technical support) -Elevated centrality of PQ&L unit -Critical role of Program Offices (de facto model of 1 overarching program, 5 sub-programs, and 4 contributing technical units) -ACD-P doubles as Program Director

18. Operationalizing the TOC: Role of Program Offices Now led by Team Leader, may combine program initiative management responsibilities Question of role of program offices as ‘sub- programs’ – focus on an impact sub-group, should all technical areas be represented, or should there be greater focus? Are the POs the ‘right’ ones, ie their selection is based on CTz’s current portfolio, rather than any strategic choice process

19. Operationalizing Strategy: Recommendations - 1 Roles of TUs vis-à-vis the TOC need clarifying. Easiest by looking at the Domains of Change and pathways, and then seeing what are the critical models and approaches each unit is a custodian of and how these inter-relate to the TOC This will provide a vital mechanism for achieving both focus and leveraging

20. Developing and Leveraging Models Our area based work The broader impact group Model Development Policy Influencing Wider Spreading

21. Operationalizing Strategy: Recommendations - 2 Program Offices should specialize on the development, refinement and building evidence of effectiveness around particular models and approaches eg Kahama and girl’s leadership This means that TUs will focus on the POs developing models relating to them, and will play critical roles not only with respect to model development, but also their use in policy influencing and wider leveraging Program office ‘sub-programs’ therefore ‘lift up’ beyond the geographic areas to encompass also districts/ regions and national levels

22. Marginalized and vulnerable women & girls in rural, Under-served and environmentally restricted areas are empowered to live sustainable, healthy and secure lives DOC 1 The IG has access to basic services, resources, skills, knowledge and confidence to diversify their livelihoods, and become resilient to environmental shocks DOC 2 Cultural and social norms recognize and uphold rights of the impact group, enabling them to participate equally in family, local and national decision making DOC 3 Civil society, private sector, local and national governance systems and institutions are responsive to the needs and rights of the IG. DOC 4 Critical ecosystems and natural resources (forest, marine, watersheds, agricultural and range lands) on which marginalized and vulnerable women and girls depend are healthy and intact P1. Build capacity for income, savings and food security P2. Improve Education Access & Quality P3. Improve Access & Quality of Health, Water & Sanitation P4. Strengthen NRM & CC Adaptation P5. Develop Girls & Women’s Networks P6. Promote civic engagement of women and girls P7. Raise awareness and advocate for action at local /grassroots P8. Promote citizen engagement for increased participation, transparency and accountability P9. Build capacity of LGAs to deliver quality basic services P10. Promote pro-poor, gender sensitive policies P11. Strengthen NR governance and policy implementation P12. Promote Pro-Poor Climate change adaptation and mitigation P13. Development and test different approaches / models for scale-up IMPACT GOAL DOMAIN OF CHANGE PATHWAYS CARE Tanzania: Theory of Change

23. FINANCE AND DONOR MARKETING

24. Funding by Donor: 2009-2012 (USD) DONORS FY2009 FY2010FY 2011FY2012 Austria 77,090.06 203,570.75 209,527.00 218,007.00 Denmark 71,993.50 575,345.37 506,619.56 504,800.00 CARE International - 23,472.00 - - Norge 111,102.72 1,405,378.67 1,461,136.77 3,506,955.00 CARE Tanzania (General Purpose) 52,084.55 24,617.73 16,668.22 - UK 118,829.71 355,329.64 344,912.86 129,087.00 Canada 61,011.00 73,474.46 59,726.71 - European Union 814,236.35 433,066.08 216,643.15 231,737.00 Financial Institutions 2,292,830.89 3,534,991.05 2,123,527.29 - Global fund 2,423,166.42 1,417,642.83 3,000,118.41 - Irish Embassy 554,680.71 745,144.02 931,564.40 397,100.00 United Nations 97,254.67 1,353,866.93 264,754.70 150,000.00 unrestricted 511,747.70 804,611.11 343,000.00 - Foundations 1,762,828.29 4,238,296.29 2,925,770.26 2,480,015.00 USA 332,778.98 897,416.45 1,995,941.86 3,372,365.00 Total 9,281,635.55 16,086,223.38 14,399,911.19 10,990,066.00

25. Funding by Sources: 2009-2012 USD, (by 100,000s)

26. Foundations (FY2011)

27. Donor Trends CARE Tz has an extremely healthy present portfolio, pipeline and mix of donors (see diagrams) The CO nevertheless engages in very limited donor advocacy, and from what we could gather experiments minimally within donor contracts (ie contracts accepted as given) Thus far donor demands for impact accountability appear to be limited, but will surely increase (and especially given the size of CARE Tz’s portfolio)

28. Finance The CO finance system focuses only on donor reporting. Financial analysis, such as it is, is concerned with the production of monthly donor reports and an analysis of burn rates, ie is still largely an accounting function Finance staff at Program Office level also undertake grants and contracts management of ‘partners’

29. Financial Cost Pools In addition to the HQ cost pool the CO has recently established cost pools for the newly renamed Program Offices These have been established as ‘One-stop shops for dealing with management issues through the Team Leader’. Should realize efficiencies and cost savings However, for the CO the danger lies in these cost pools simply adding to the superstructure. They need to be seen as qualitatively different, as program ‘basket funds’ This means donors contributing to the funds will be provided regular reporting on achievements to show how their funds are being leveraged It also means that as part of the ‘influencing and leveraging roles’ of models, positions not in the PO locations, could be included in their cost pools (TUs cover own costs to survive!)

30. ALIGNING STRUCTURES

31. ACD ProgramACD PS PQL Unit (Supported by IT Unit) Technical Units (Supported by DFC to work with TUs, PO/TLs and PIMs for financial analysis, budgeting and to build staff and partner capacity Dar Based PS Units Cross-cutting theme Advisor/Coordinator (Gender and Gov/Policy Advocacy) NR & CCMSRHGEL Dar structure PO Kigoma PO Morogoro PO Mwanza PO Kahama PO Zanzibar PO structure CD ED &WE Each PO is led by TL and managed by POLT CO SLT POLT

32. New Position and ResponsibilitiesConsolidation PQL Team Accountabilities - PQL remains within WAGE with added operational support from CARE Support M&E, impact measurement and learning across POs PO level Logistics, administration, finance Gender Gender Equity and Diversity within the organization Supporting gender transformational models (e.g. Engage Men, Masculinities) Gov. & Advocacy Continues to manage governance and health related projects Support POs to engage governance issues in their contexts Technical units Ensure technical excellence of models being applied, supporting team leaders and POs Develop proposals to support strategic interventions in POs that support model development Support the innovation, development, analysis, learning and adaptation on relevant models Communicate and leverage evidence of impact and lessons learnt to influence national level civil society and government forums Team Leaders, PO-LT Guide the sub-programs strategically, with support from technical units Lift evidence of impact and lessons learnt to influence district level civil society and government forums Ensure compliance and reporting of project initiatives within a PO Some continue to manage projects as well. Further Roles?Consolidation Finance Financial analysis – Cost/Benefit analysis Program initiative level staff (managers, officers)? PO Operation Support for Team Leaders to take a more strategic position Key Positions

33. Working programmatically To Program PQL Team Cultivate and organize space for regular learning and reflection to take place Technical and theme leaders Strategic leaders must spend more time with program offices, where programming has been centered Role is to support innovation and learning To Program Support Finance Develop financial analysis function to show returns on investment/ cost- benefit analysis HR Transparent system for talent management Promote gender equity and diversity in recruiting, retention, sensitivity among staff, etc. To CO Directors Carving space for technical/ theme leads to engage in networks, develop and leverage models Negotiating with donors for consolidation of positions, as needed Advocate for program-level funding and cost-pools

34. IMPACT MONITORING AND LEARNING

35. Impact Monitoring - 1 With the combination of the high levels of funding that Tanzania has been receiving from donors with the extremely poor MDG performance, there is likely to be growing focus on development aid accountability in the country. The NGO sector is unlikely to be exempt from this, and with CARE receiving +$15 million annually, there is good reason to expect that greater attention will also be paid to CARE Tz’s ability to demonstrate achievements

36. Impact Monitoring - 2 Currently High focus on indicators, collecting data, but less on analysis Framework for analysis at the PO level unclear (theory of change? ) Recs Supporting PQL Team to take on a broader role in monitoring changes, testing theories and refining models –TU heads explicitly responsible for analysis and lifting up of/advocating for key models developed –Full-time staff and resources to support PQL in CARE TZ –Space for PQ team to provide more support to POs Light set of methods and indicators integrated into CARE’s way of working: test models, nurture innovation, leverage learning Ensure space and time for analysis – beyond collecting data

37. Learning and collaboration - 1 TECHNICAL UNITS (THEMES)PROGRAM OFFICES (GEOGRAPHY) WITHIN Learning workshops and trainings (i.e. annual WAGE workshop) Sharing reports PO Coordination committee ACROSS Annual program meeting Proposal design (Tech. Unit Heads) BETWEEN TU and PO Announcements from Dar Office  Team leader  PO staff Team leaders report to respective TU lead WITHIN/ACROSS All Units: Sharepoint being developed to facilitate sharing of reports BEYOND CARE TANZANIA Some discussions with other networks (TEN/MET) Requests for training on VSLA model by other NGOs POs on program advisory committee within region

38. Learning and collaboration - 2 Ways to ensure sharing across POs or across technical units not yet established Sharepoint being established for greater access to documents across working areas –Processes and focal points to ensure that teams share documents, but also to encourage them to use it as a resource and basis for dialogue/ cross-learning?

39. Learning and Collaboration Recommendations Learning processes –Regular (Quarterly) exchanges across TUs/POs to explore key questions arising –Integrate and apply methods from CO’s experiences : Patsy Collins, Regional Capacity-building, Governance monitoring, SII, MSC, etc. Participating more with external networks: collaborate strategically, share models/lessons, influence policy.

40. COMMUNICATING THE P- SHIFT

41. INTERNALEXTERNAL CONTRIBUTE OWN LEAD PROMOTE FOLLOW OBSERVE ACD-Program, PQL Coordinator: program strategy and IML. Team Leaders: reg. sub-programs TU/Theme Leads: model dev’t, learning, networking, leveraging. ACD-Program, PQL Coordinator: program strategy and IML. Team Leaders: reg. sub-programs TU/Theme Leads: model dev’t, learning, networking, leveraging. CD and TU Managers: involved in design, strategic tech/comms. support. PS Leadership: develop systems for working as a program (HR, finance) CD and TU Managers: involved in design, strategic tech/comms. support. PS Leadership: develop systems for working as a program (HR, finance) PI managers, officers: coordinate & integrate with each other PO-PS: HR and finance across initiatives PI managers, officers: coordinate & integrate with each other PO-PS: HR and finance across initiatives All staff interviewed heard about program approach and see their role within it. However, understanding varies (basket of long- term projects). Fewer could articulate how they will work differently beyond coordination between program initiatives. CI: aligning around program approach (WAGE, WAA, RMU support) Donors: CARE-TZ has begun to share Program thinking with some donors Donors and partners not informed on P-Shift, in general. Partners outside of design process, and still need to be brought into this way of thinking. ENGAGEMENT

42. Communicating the Program Externally Explore key allies and strategic partners for working programmatically Meetings with key partners to share Program, gain feedback and explore new ways of working Engage donors to promote the program approach, and support for it (leveraging resources, model development, influencing poilcy/gov. strategies) Internally Learning sessions, flyers across the organization outlining CARE-TZ Program – establish common understanding Develop vision and understanding of program approach at PO level – PO sub-populations, pathways/strategies? PQL/TU support to POs for effective model development and support in analysis/strategic design

43. PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS

44. Partners as Contractors In the discussion held in the Kahama sub-office, there was agreement that currently ‘partners’ are only sub-contractors. There is minimal capacity building and are simply changed when performance is considered unsatisfactory In the Pastoralists Basket Fund, where CARE Tz works with 39 CSOs, CARE is simply treated as ‘the donor’. There are more genuine partnerships emerging where funding is not involved (e.g. Health Equity, Global Water Initiatives) At the national level we are starting to engage more with others, but in networks CARE Tz’s role currently appears largely to be timid, and we are reluctant to lead or challenge constructively

45. A closed world in which we create our own reality with finite resources The artificial, time bound, world of projects The ‘ real ’ world of programs An open world where we work with the agendas, resources and institutions of others Working with ‘ partners ’ as sub-recipients Working with partners as equals Changing the Nature of Relationships

46. A Programmatic Approach: The Mind Shift It is difficult to shift our mindsets about our work, about what it should be about, and about the scope and scale we need to reach. Projects – and even related sequences of projects – are an answer to the question, “What can CARE do?” (even if there are contractual partnerships within the project). Here we seek to control relationships. Programs – when crafted correctly – respond to a different question: “What is the change in society (impact) that we wish to catalyze?” Here we seek to join with others on a collaborative journey.

47. Partnering Recommendations At local level, CARE Tz needs to focus increasingly on model building, and leave the role of ‘spread’ to local partners In spread, CO role should be training, quality control and support to monitoring This requires change in ethos: partners seen as allies and colleagues rather than contractors; CO needs to build friendships!

48. Partnering: Our Role in Networks Tanzania suffers from a lack of linkage: the communication and accountability gap between national and district/ local levels – local seems always remote! This gap needs bridging if poverty and vulnerability is to be addressed effectively It is a role CARE TZ should assume, and encourage others to assume too; it requires collaboration and active leadership

49. Summary: Context and CARE Tanzania’s Role In East Africa, Tanzania has everything going for it, but its performance in reducing poverty and fulfilling MDGs is woeful The governance ‘gap’ is a critical issue Increased demands for the accountability of all development actors is inevitable CARE Tz needs to play a leading not a trailing role in addressing this demand

50. Summary: CARE Tz response The CO has created an overarching focus and shifted Technical Unit roles from management to quality development The increased quality of CARE Tz’s work requires both a greater geographic focus and a focus on model development, influencing and leverage Partners, partnering and networking need to be taken seriously A much greater focus is needed on holding government accountable – embed methods and approaches already developed, widely! (scorecards, participatory budgeting etc)

51. Summary : Knowing and communicating our achievements We need to demonstrate the contribution we are making to beneficial social change The PQ&L Unit needs strengthening and empowering, to lead development of annual impact monitoring and learning systems This information needs using to shift our relations with donors, seeking to influence and not just react We need to become more transparent and accountable ourselves This requires an internal cultural shift: developing the courage to lead. We have no doubt the CO has the potential and ability to play this role!!!