Achieving Lasting Impacts Understanding the shift to more programmatic approaches in CARE

Presentation Plan External Trends and Challenges Meeting These Challenges and opportunities Changes Program Definitions and Characteristics Internal Organizational Changes Organizational Performance Measurement Learning Structures

External Challenges & Opportunities  Underlying causes of poverty  Project do not address poverty  New development approaches  Northern policies  Social movements  Critique of International NGOs  Importance of impact assessment

Response to Opportunities and Challenges WHY:  Poor defining and measuring UCP  No theory to address them  Failure to build on gains  Too much “CARE”,  Organizational Amnesia  Organizational norms of what constitutes success SII on Women’s Empowerment 15%best in class 60% agency level impact 25% not so good

CI’s Response: 5 Strategic Directions  Emergency Response  Global Advocacy  Organizational Evolution  Information and Knowledge Management  Building Shared Expertise

CARE USA’s Response CARE helps communities achieve long-term reductions in poverty by… Developing human capacity & providing economic opportunity And addressing social injustice & inequity With a focus on marginalized women & girls Demonstrating a long-term commitment to the community Addressing all three components of the Unifying Framework Leveraging our areas of expertise, informed by our deep understanding of community needs Measuring impact and advocating for policy change Addressing basic human conditions through sectoral interventions Addressing power imbalances resulting from Poor governance Gender inequities Discrimination Social and economic exclusion Understanding that women and girls are the most vulnerable, with the strongest impact on whole communities’ well- being Acknowledging that working with men and boys will be crucial to our ongoing work = xx

Changes  CI vision, mission, values  CI program principles  RBA and UCP  Unifying framework  Commitment to women and girls  Humanitarian + development  Multi-sectoral identity  Local identity and relevance  Stewardship of resources SAME DIFFERENT  Global identity and brand  Advocacy function at all levels  National-level impacts  Strategic partnerships  New practices and knowledge  Impacts not just outputs/outcomes  Reward program quality and impact

Defining a Program Approach Defining a Programmatic Approach

Definition of a Program A program is a coherent set of initiatives by CARE and our allies that involves a long term commitment to specific marginalized and vulnerable groups to achieve lasting impact at broad scale on underlying causes of poverty and social injustice. This goes beyond the scope of projects to achieve positive changes in human conditions, in social positions and in the enabling environment.

8 Characteristics 1.A clearly defined goal for impact on the lives of a specific group, realized at broad scale. 2.A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty and social injustice at multiple levels 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 enable CARE and our partners 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 for social change through our 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 for maximizing change at a broader scale. 8.Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders.

CO Strategy  Consist of 3-5 programs  Long-term measurement systems and learning processes  Added value to projects  Define CARE locally  CO-level impact assessment and reporting

Role of Region  Focus more on COs’ programs  Regional programs will be developed  Regional learning and knowledge sharing

Signature Program  Both CARE Aus and CUSA  Should meet all eight characteristics  Value to image building and branding  In CO may contribute to locally-defined program entire program

Sectoral Excellence  Changes in technical assistance  Change how projects are done  Enhance our accountability systems  Multi-country programs

CARE International  Program Working Group  Non-lead members continue as before: oadd value to project-based donor modalities  International policy advocacy aims

Fundraising  New philanthropies and private individuals  New kinds of collaborations  Coalitions for lobbying donors

Marketing and Communication  Will produce impact evidence  Will provide better stories about impact  Will differentiate CARE from peers  Collaboration will help : odistinct image and relationships in the North oknowledge and learning products and processes

Internal Organizational Changes Financial  Increase funds to COs  Align financial management policies  Linking COs and new donors Human Resources  Clearer accountabilities  Better talent retention

Internal Organizational Changes Knowledge Sharing and Learning  Stronger incentives  Global reporting on common indicators + reflective practice  Stronger global learning and knowledge sharing system Communications and Marketing  Differentiates CARE  Understand Impacts on underlying causes and  Simple impact story  Consistent internal messaging

Organizational Performance Measurement 1. UBORA: A global performance measurement system that: connects program and program support uses common indicators reflective practice competencies performance story at multiple levels 2.Program Support “Basic” indicators - all COs end of FY ‘09 3.Program “Plus” indicators - Learning Labs in FY ‘09

Why CO-Level Indicators  Only financial performance measures  Deepens project-based strategies and approaches  To balance current emphasis  Start rewarding staff for program quality and impact.

Program Process Indicators Promote Empowerment 1. # 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 2. # of strategic partnerships and alliances (non-project; non-contract specific) in place. Ensure Accountability and Promote Responsibility 3. # and % program initiatives that have a functioning system in place to be held accountable by participants and civil society. 4. # and % program initiatives that have a clear approach for compelling those with responsibilities toward poor and marginalized people to fulfill their obligations. Address Discrimination 5. # and % of program initiatives that have a deliberate strategy for opposing discrimination and promoting equity, in particular gender equity.

Program Process Indicators Promote Non- Violent Conflict Resolution 6. # 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 7. # and % of program initiatives that have a coherent strategy* to address and measure impact on the underlying causes of poverty and social injustice. Advocacy 8. # and % of program initiatives that include a specific advocacy strategy*. Learning and Knowledge Management 9. # and % of program initiatives that have learning objectives linked to the program’s theory of change and processes in place for pursuing their learning objectives.

Program Support Indicators 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) 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 Managing the Basics Beyond the Basics

Test CO-Level Indicators By FY ‘09:  11 program quality indicators  3 program support indicators By June 2008 Draft set of program impact indicators related to  MDGs  Social Position  Enabling Environment Piloted by end FY ‘09

Learning & Knowledge Sharing What is the Question to which this learning and knowledge strategy responds? How can CARE change faster, more effectively, more consistently, and at a global level? How can we move the program approach through the organization more quickly ?

Learning & Knowledge Sharing Strategy Key Actors for Moving Knowledge From Site to Site Key Learners and Testers of applicability of Knowledge and Practice Knowledge Sharing and Learning Processes Learning Laboratories DRDs Regional PQ Groups Thematic Teams and Networks CUSA global KL and OPM teams Sites of Knowledge Generation LL Satellites Other COs CI members Regions Sectors Partners Investment in staff More strategic mix of learning/knowledge sharing Better incentives to staff Clearly defined learning objectives New Tools and Technologies Learning Culture

What is a Learning Lab  Holistic change  Investment in staff to for shift  Investment in better knowledge products  Learning culture of accepting mistakes  Capacity to help others learn

What is a Satellite?  Learning relationship with learning labs  Supported by global resources  Engaged in programmatic shift  Feed back improvements  Knowledge transfer monitored

Learning Laboratories & Satellites Country Office Bangladesh Sri Lanka Georgia Egypt Ethiopia Mali Malawi Region/Sub-Region Latin America and the Caribbean SE Asia (Laos and Vietnam) Global Programs Water Sector 3 Signature Programs Satellites (Still Not Fully Determined) Zambia, Mozambique Niger, Ghana Burundi, Uganda