care tanzania the courage to lead

CARE TanzaniaThe Courage to Lead

Building a whole greater than the sum of partsOperationalization of the Program Approach

Michael Drinkwater and Diana Wu 25 February 2011

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

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

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

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

ENVISIONING THE FUTURECARE Tanzania in five years

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.

Burning Questions, Concernsthe 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?

Key Questions1. 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-Shift6. Role of partners and

partnerships

OPERATIONALIZING STRATEGY

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

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

Agricultu

re &

forest

dependentMining & in

dustry

depen

dent o

r livin

g

adjace

nt to

Fisheri

es

depen

dent

Pasto

ralis

t & Agr

o-

pasto

ralis

t

Girls aged 7-14 years old (in and out of school)Adolescence

Adulthood (married women and female heads of HH)

Life

cy

cle/

stag

e

Livelihood

North-w

estern zone

Lake zoneM

id-central zoneEast coast zone

Southern zone

Geogr

aphic

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

Gender

Governance & Policy Advocacy

MV women &

girls

Geographic area

Girl’s Educatio

n & Leadershi

p

Economic Developmen

t & WE

Maternal & SRH Natural

Resources & Climate

Change

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

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

Fishing Pastoral

North-west

Mid-centralEast coast

South

Lake

SUB-IMPACT GROUPSacross livelihoods and age groups

G A W G A W G A W G A W

EMERGING MODELSFOR 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

KAHAMAGirls Adol. Wom.

Edu, Lead.

SRHR Econ, WE

Agr. NRMCC

Gov

Gender

Legend = Projects focused on IG

* = Pastoralist-specific interventions

KASULU/KIGOMAGirls Adol. Wom.

Edu, Lead.

SRHR Econ, WE

Agr. NRMCC

Gov

Gender

MOROGORO (MVOMERO, Girls Adol. Wom.

Edu, Lead.

**

SRHR

Econ, WE

Agr. NRMCC

Gov

Gender

WASH, Pastoral rights

*

MWANZAGirls Adol. Wom.

Edu, Lead.

SRHR Econ, WE

Agr. NRMCC

Gov Gender

ZANZIBARGirls Adol. 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

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

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

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

Developing and Leveraging Models

Our area based work

The broader impact group

Model Development

Policy Influencing

Wider Spreading

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

Marginalized and vulnerable women & girls in rural, Under-served and environmentally restricted areas are empowered to live sustainable, healthy and secure lives

DOC 1The IG has access to basic services, resources, skills, knowledgeand confidence to diversify their livelihoods, and become resilient to environmentalshocks

DOC 2Cultural and social norms recognize and uphold rights of the impact group,enabling them to participate equally in family, local and national decision making

DOC 3Civil society, private sector, local and national governance systems and institutions are responsive to the needs and rights of the IG.

DOC 4Critical 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 securityP2. Improve Education Access & QualityP3. Improve Access & Quality of Health, Water & SanitationP4. Strengthen NRM & CC Adaptation

P5. Develop Girls & Women’s NetworksP6. Promote civic engagement of women and girlsP7. Raise awareness and advocate for action at local /grassroots

P8. Promote citizen engagement for increased participation, transparency and accountabilityP9. Build capacity of LGAs to deliver quality basic servicesP10. Promote pro-poor, gender sensitive policies

P11. Strengthen NR governance and policy implementationP12. Promote Pro-Poor Climate change adaptation and mitigationP13. Development and test different approaches / models for scale-up

IMPA

CT

GOAL

DOM

AIN

OF

CHAN

GEPA

THW

AYS

CARE Tanzania: Theory of Change

FINANCE AND DONOR MARKETING

Funding by Donor: 2009-2012 (USD)DONORS FY2009 FY2010 FY 2011 FY2012

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

14,399,911.1

9

10,990,066.0

0

Funding by Sources: 2009-2012

USD, (by 100,000s)

Austria

Denmark

CARE International

Norway

CARE Tanzania

CARE Uk

CIDA

European Union

Financial Institutions

Global fund

Govt of Tanzania

Irish Embassy

United Nations

unrestricted

*US Foundations

US Government

- 2,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 10,000,000.00

FY2012FY2011FY2010FY2009

Foundations (FY2011)

Patsy CollinsHoward BuffetOther Private DonorsGates FoundationCredit SuisseTrehan Foundation

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)

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’

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!)

ALIGNING STRUCTURES

ACD Program ACD 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 & CC MSRH GEL

Dar s

truc

ture

PO Kigoma

PO Morogoro

PO Mwanza

PO Kahama

PO Zanzibar

PO st

ruct

ure

CD

ED &WE

Each

PO

is le

d by

TL

and

man

aged

by

POLT

CO SLT

POLT

New Position and Responsibilities ConsolidationPQL 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, financeGender • 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? ConsolidationFinance • 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

Working programmatically

To ProgramPQL 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 SupportFinance• 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

IMPACT MONITORING AND LEARNING

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

Impact Monitoring - 2Currently

• 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

Learning and collaboration - 1TECHNICAL 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

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?

Learning and CollaborationRecommendations• 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.

COMMUNICATING THE P-SHIFT

INTERNAL EXTERNAL

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.

•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

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

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

PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIPS

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

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

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.

PartneringRecommendations

• 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!

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

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

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)

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!!!