Achieving Lasting Impacts

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

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

3. External Challenges & Opportunities • Underlying causes of poverty • Project do not address poverty • New development approaches pull in two directions • Northern policies • Critique of International NGOs • Importance of impact assessment

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

5. CARE USA’s Response With a focus on marginalized women & girls Developing human capacity & providing economic opportunity And addressing social injustice & inequity CARE helps communities achieve long-term reductions in poverty by… x x = 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 Addressing basic human conditions through sectoral interventions 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

6. Changes SAME DIFFERENT • 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 • 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

7. FY09 Deliverables Defining a Program Approach • 21 Programs Designed and under way in 10 Learning Laboratories • Program analysis and design competencies developed in additional 10 COs (satellites) • 300 staff with adequate reflective practice competencies • Standard program quality and impact indicators tested and finalized for use in all COs • Accountability and compliance mechanisms established

8. Defining a Program Approach Defining a Programmatic Approach

9. 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.

10. 8 Characteristics • A clearly defined goal for impact on the lives of a specific group, realized at broad scale. • A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty, gender inequality, and social injustice at multiple levels with multiple stakeholders. • An explicit theory of change that is rigorously tested and adapted to reflect ongoing learning. • A coherent set of initiatives that enable CARE and our partners to contribute significantly to the transformation articulated in the theory of change. • Ability to promote organizational and social learning, to generate knowledge and evidence of impact. • Contribution to broad movements for social change through our work with and strengthening of partners, networks and alliances. • A strategy to leverage and influence the use and allocation of financial and other resources within society for maximizing change at a broader scale. • Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders that are transparent.

11. COs in a programmatic world • Consists of 3-5 programs • Long-term measurement systems and learning processes • Common quality/impact indicators • CO-level quality assurance system, impact assessment and reporting • Define and brand CARE locally; allow us to make better use of existing project modalities

12. Regions in a Programmatic World • Focus on COs’ programs (as opposed to projects) • Focus on accountability for quality/ impact • Regional programs • Regional learning and knowledge sharing

13. Signature Programs • Both CARE Aus and CUSA • Need to meet all eight characteristics • In CO may contribute to a locally-defined program or be a long-term program itself

14. CARE International in a programmatic world • Non-lead members continue as before: • add value to project-based donor modalities • Engage deeply in CO and regional strategy processes • International policy advocacy aims

15. Marketing and Communication • Communicating impacts to our stakeholders: will differentiate CARE from peers • Helping with internal communication and messaging: plain and simple language use; assisting with internal communications strategy

16. Internal Organizational Changes Financial • Increase UNR/Flexible funds to COs • Align financial management policies • Linking COs and new donors HumanResources • Clearer accountabilities • Better talent retention

17. Internal Organizational Changes KnowledgeSharingandLearning • Stronger incentives • Global reporting on common indicators + reflective practice • More focused (clearer goals for) global learning and knowledge sharing system CommunicationsandMarketing • Differentiates CARE • Understand Impacts on underlying causes and • Simple impact story • Consistent internal messaging

18. Organizational Performance Measurement • UBORA: A global performance measurement system that: • connects program and program support • uses common indicators • reflective practice competencies • performance story at multiple levels • Program Support “Basic” indicators - all COs, immediate • Program Support “Plus” indicators - Learning Labs in FY ’09 • Program quality/impact indicators – Learning Labs

19. Program Quality Indicators

20. Program Quality Indicators

21. Program Support Indicators Managing the Basics Beyond the Basics

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

23. 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

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

25. Since Istanbul • Launches in Ethiopia, Malawi, Laos/Vietnam • Preparation for launches in Egypt, Mali, and Sri Lanka • Deepening of work in Bangladesh • Final ID of most satellites • Testing and finalizing of quality indicators and the process for establishing a quality baseline • Rethinking of plans based on actual budgets • Production of five basic briefs on the program shift w/ translation