Transcript Exercising Adaptive Leadership CARE

Building Institutional Capacity in
Applying Design, Monitoring and
Evaluation Standards in CARE
Sierra Leone
Bockarie Sesay – Presenter
Co-Authors:
Ahmed Ag Aboubacrine
Chris Necker
5th AFREA/NONIE/3IE Conference –
Cairo -31st March – 2nd April 2009
© 2002, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
PRESENTATION







Context
Design, Monitoring & Evaluation (DME) Challenges in
CARE Sierra Leone in 2006
CARE International Program Quality Framework
Institutional DME Capacity Assessment Methodology
Outcomes of DME Capacity Assessment
Lessons Learnt
Current DME Capacity of CARE Sierra Leone and the
Way Forward
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Context


The CARE International Sierra Leone Strategic
Plan for 2007 – 2011 includes the following
enabling strategy: “Strengthen Country Office
(CO) and partner organizational capacity to
implement accountable, high quality programming
driven by thematic expertise and robust DME,
including knowledge management and reflective
practice”.
Measure of success: CARE Sierra Leone is
recognized as an authority in impact measurement
and knowledge management, especially in the
areas of household livelihood security (HLS),
health, youth and governance.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
DME Challenges
THE ENVIRONMENT: Sierra Leone is a
complex post-conflict environment
characterized by:




Weak capacity of national staff
NGOs’ staff background is primarily in
emergency and rehabilitation intervention.
Culture of dependency created by the aid
agencies at community and government levels.
Lack of accountability of government and donor
community.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
DME Challenges
The Technical Challenges internal to CARE:

Insufficient knowledge of CARE program quality framework

Weak Organization of data gathering

Lack of understanding of packages for data processing

Complexity of information needs: qualitative and quantitative
data, survey analysis, compilation of data from several
stakeholders, etc.

Evaluations most often done as ad-hoc tasks (hard to
demonstrate true impact (large scale and sustainable)

Lack of ME activities Coordination and Technical support in ME
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
DME Challenges
The in-house adaptive challenges:






Non-adherence (attitudinal challenge) to CARE
Vision, Mission, Core Values, Principles and
Standards.
Persistence of emergency culture.
Lack of program coordination and program quality.
processes at field offices levels.
Need of Standardization and Harmonization.
M&E was seen as one individual function rather
than a task for every one.
Staff looked at ME officer as policeman/woman
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
CARE International Program Quality
Standards
http://pqdl.care.org
Our Vision & Mission
& Values
Programming Principles
Program Quality
Standards
Core Guidelines
(HLS,
RBA, UF, DME)
Sector/Technical
Guidelines
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Our Programming Principles
Principle 1: Promote Empowerment
Principle 2: Work in Partnership with others
Principle 3: Ensure Accountability and Promote
Responsibility
Principle 4: Oppose Discrimination
Principle 5: Oppose Violence
Principle 6: Seek Sustainable Results
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
The
Project DME
Cycle
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Institutional DME Capacity Assessment
Methodology
Robust Program
Impact Measurement
System
Elaboration of CO Strategy to Strengthen
DM E Capacity
Completion of CO DM E Capacity Assessment
Tool (Headquarter Program Team)
Aggregation and synthesis of all project assessments and
Summary of project staff DME training needs
Completion of project capacity assessment tool
Assessment of training needs of individual staff
•Thorough discussion of DME challenges among
project staff (and partners) by a task force
•Hiring a Facilitator
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Outcomes of DME Capacity Assessment



At individual level: The assessment led to understanding and
prioritizing of ME staff needs and to a capacity building plan
which is currently being implemented.
At project level: The assessment led to all program staff
awareness’ raising on CARE programming principles and
Program Quality Standards. Some projects started shifting
from the old habits while others remain under strong
attitudinal barriers which prevent them to start the change.
At organizational level: The assessment at national level
helped in identifying CO program gaps in terms of program
coordination, knowledge management, program quality
assurance procedures/protocols and information management.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Outcomes of DME Capacity Assessment
The Institutional Reform within the program through which:
1) a clear mandate was made mandatory for all projects in
terms of program quality,
2) an internal accountability system was set to monitor the
compliance with norms and standards and also to lead the
country office learning agenda for the same purpose.

The created DME unit role is:
 Enabling Unit (catalyst)
 Quality Assurance Body for CO Portfolio
 Capacity Building
 Technical Assistance
 Synergy Development
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Outcomes of DME Capacity Assessment


DME Capacity Building Plan
Technical Capacity Building in DME







Data Analysis and Interpretation
Quantitative Research Methods
Training on Statistical Software Package
Qualitative Research Methods
HIV/AIDS M&E
M&E for Governance, etc.
Promotion of Adaptive Solutions




HR unit played a leadership role in changing staff attitudes and
behaviors
All managers were hold responsible to lead the required adaptive changes
by being a role model for their supervisees.
DME unit tackled the perception of ME staff as police men or women by
demonstrating the unit added value to each project team and by
empowering low level staff in ME (through a
Demystification of ME
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Lessons Learnt
For Aid Agencies and Governments
 It is not possible to build the capacity of all staff in all necessary
areas. Identify your actual needs and use outsourcing when
necessary.



Where projects continue from a previous relief based environment,
NGOs and other aid agencies should consider changing staff to
those with greater skills in development approaches.
Participatory assessment increases the understanding but not the
ownership. The ownership level depends on the extent to which key
personal are empowered (in terms of responsibilities) and are hold
accountable.
Understanding the complexity and impact of adaptive challenge is a
key of success (in fact not addressing the adaptive challenges is a
“killer factor”). Don’t do the classic error of adopting technical
solutions for adaptive challenges.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Lessons Learnt
For Development Implementers

Most often, organizations assume wrongly that there is a tacit
knowledge and understanding of norms and standards. This is not
the case (R/U/I/A)

CB is not an end. No follow up will be done properly if there is not
“a customer” and “a watchdog entity” for the norms and standards.

Performance measurement system (M of ME, Scorecard, etc.)

A lot of local CB opportunities are missed. Review the way of doing
ad-hoc external consultancies.

One man/woman show risk (Influence all levels)
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Lessons Learnt
For donor community
 It is important that donors commit to fund some extra activities
as most of development implementers have not enough resources
for capacity building and they rather assume that they will hire
“ready” staff to work on projects and programs.

Be aware of the capacity gaps within their staff and find out how
to address them as the capacity of their own staff limits the
quality of accountability.
For academic community and evaluation bodies
 There are many capacity building suppliers in evaluation but no
standardization in the curricula (e.g. HIV/AIDS ME Training). It
is critical to continue investing in harmonization of monitoring and
evaluation norms and standards for development and in capacity
building packages tailored to the needs of development
implementers.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Current DME Capacity of CARE Sierra Leone
Currently, CARE International Sierra Leone has a strong
DME unit with skilled staff to plan and manage all its
program needs. The unit is contributing to the following:


Improved DME Culture within CARE Sierra Leone Program
Portfolio: Through better coordination and harmonization of
programming practices based on the state of art in general
and CARE program quality in particular, the unit ensures that
all staff understand and apply systematically all the phases
of CARE project DME cycle.
Promotion of Culture of Sharing, Learning, Thinking and
Innovation: There is a systematization of information
sharing, archiving projects’ reports and evaluations.
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
New Challenges





Staff turnover (including expatriate)
Promoting learning and innovation while
managing risk
Impact measurement and its attribution to
CARE Sierra Leone (Donors Versus CARE)
Use of web-based knowledge management
system creating for sharing purpose
Changes in donors’ regulations
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
Way Forward



Active Staff Motivation and Retention
Strategies
Talent Management Process
Achieving the Creation of an impact-led
culture
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.
CARE Sierra Leone Portal – Knowledge Sharing
http://portal.sl.care.org/
Questions?
© 2005, CARE USA. All rights reserved.