1. 1 August 11, 2010 Track 1 Meeting, Maputo Geoffrey Silwizya M.Sc.(D.I.C.) CIDRZ Chief Operating Officer Transition Capacity Building and Monitoring Tools: The OCVAT Process at CIDRZ, Zambia

2. 2 EGPAF/CIDRZ Collaboration  Collaboration under Project HEART/Zambia  Care and treatment services since 2004 in Lusaka, Southern, Eastern and Western provinces  PMTCT services since 2002 in Lusaka, Eastern and Western provinces  As of March 31, 2010:  309 PMTCT sites  65 care and treatment sites

3. 3 Organizational Capacity & Viability Assessment Tool (OCVAT)  OCVAT is used to assess organizational capacity of EGPAF’s NGO transition partners.  Results used to:  Inform development of Capacity Building Plans (CBP)  Demonstrate progress in building NGO transition partners’ capacity  Contribute to transition decisions about transfer of programmatic responsibility and funding to transition partners  Originally developed by ICF Macro; revised by cross- departmental EGPAF working group.

4. 4 OCVAT Capacity Areas Areas #Capacity (& Viability) Areas 4.1Governance & Legal Structure 4.2Program Management 4.3Technical Capacity 4.4Grants & Sub-grantee Management 4.5Project Management 4.6Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) 4.7Financial Management 4.8Human Resources 4.9Office Operations 4.1Information Technology (IT) 4.11Resource Mobilization 4.12Networking 4.13Communications Viability Resources Management Learning Organizing for Implementation Leading / Directing Links to Dimensions of Organizational Management

5. 5 OCVAT Scoring  Five stages of capacity listed for each indicator (2 points per stage).  1=No or minimal capacity; Not ready for transition; No chance of sustainability  10= Excellent level of capacity; Ready for full organizational independence; Excellent chance of sustainability  Scoring  Assessors select score(1-10) that best describes current capacity of organization.  Median indicator scores used to determine Capacity Area score CATEGORY 1. MIN. No attainment 2. informal activity only 3. start of formal activity 4. demonstrated progress 5. MAX. Complete attainment SCORE 12345678910

6. 6 Two Scoring Perspectives External (EGPAF) ScoreInternal (CIDRZ) Score  External “monitoring” purpose  “Word-pictures”  Close reference to validation documentation  Informs EGPAF transition planning  Internal, facilitated self- assessment  “Word-pictures”  Adjusted qualitatively in team review and discussion  Informs facilitator feedback and organizational development planning

7. 7 General Observations on Outcomes  CIDRZ is a strong organization (programs and operations) and feels very confident about its capacity: “Moving from good to better to best”  Has partial or full autonomy from UAB on all functions  Areas identified for capacity improvement:  Program Management  Communications  Areas identified for transition from UAB to more autonomy:  Grants Management  Financial Management  Governance

8. 8 Capacity Building Plans  Development of Capacity Building Plans:  Group participation to identify capacity building activities  Small groups developed plans by capacity area  Separate plans by capacity area integrated into one overall CIDRZ Capacity Building Plan.

9. 9 Capacity Building Plan Example - ICT & Communications 9

10. 10 CIDRZ Perspective  This was the first self-assessment undertaken of CIDRZ at the organizational level and below are the general sentiments from participants during the OCVAT: 1. There was strong participatory focus and a high level of discourse from both sides; CIDRZ & EGPAF 2. It was a great platform for Operations & Program staff to better understand how they interact with each other in their daily operations 3. It brought the “silos” together fostering a sense of cross functional/departmental cooperation i.e. Organisational development rarely affects single departments ! 4. Reached beyond transition to overall organizational development.

11. 11 CIDRZ Perspective  Highlights of the self-assessment and validation workshop are given below: 1. Of the 13 capacity areas, only 3 areas showed significant divergence in Internal & External scores (Grants & Financial Management and Communications) 2. These areas were then considered in the context of the larger domains (capacity groups) in which they fit and which link to dimensions of Organizational Management 3. These dimensions are a) Leadership b) Management of Resources c) Organizing for Implementation & d) Learning.

12. 12 CIDRZ Perspective  Findings from the External assessment in relation to scores that were significantly divergent were then tabulated and used as a basis for formulating priority actions for Capacity Building interventions using small groups of participants to work on specific capacity areas  “First Orientation for Action” items were then mapped against the findings of the External assessment to inform the development of the Capacity Building Plan  A CBP was drafted by EGPAF DC in early July and by 2 August 2010 CIDRZ had reviewed the plan and amended it as necessary. CIDRZ is now ready for implementation

13. 13 Conclusion  Broadly, CIDRZ has identified the following areas for immediate improvement/capacity building: 1. Compliance with USG regulations especially in relation to Grants & Contracts management and Procurement procedures by developing internal capacity 2. Improve PR, media and Government relations 3. Continue strengthening resource mobilization infrastructure & Program Management capacity within the organization to reduce (PEPFAR) concentration risk 4. Develop robust & integrated Management Information Systems that will produce timely and useful management reports (….at the click of a button).

14. Thank You