P2P and LRSP Proceses: Lessons learnt from CARE Niger’s satellite

1. P2P and LRSP Proceses: Lessons learnt from CARE Niger’s satellite Zakari Madougou ACD, CARE Niger WARMU RAC – March 26, 2009

2. What is Satellite ? • Sites committed to making the programmatic shift but not necessarily ready or able to take on the responsibilities of learning and dissemination as a learning lab. • Sites of adapting and implementing initial conceptualization of the programmatic approach. • Sites that have the capacity to gain knowledge and insights from the Learning Lab COs.

3. What have been done so far in Niger ? • Sharing broad information on Labs, sats, signature program P2P and UBORA. • As part of our LRSP process: • Conduct of a base line study on Program Quality indicators ( report available) • Review of Vulnerability and poverty profile through the lens of UF and UCP • Use the theory of change for the new NORAD women empowerment programs( reports and proceeds available) • Alignment of the LRSP with the framework of the Program approach (in progress)

4. Costs and requirements • Fund secured through LRPSP preparation budget • Need for laying out resources (time and $$) an about sixty people, 4 areas, 2 days of preparation, 2 days of workshop for PQI • Fears of staff compared to their job: Potential resistance of staff.

5. Benefits and opportunities • The program quality tools allows An exhaustive evaluation of activities being implemented • Give opportunity of questioning (quality and impact) our work • Rigorous tool which makes possible identifying GAPs of our work • Better understanding of ToC when using the UF • Update of the criteria of vulnerability and poverty profile • Reorganization of the M&E pole to redirect it towards the quality control, accountability and the measurement of impact

6. Challenges and difficulties • • The PQI tool raise complex questions (exclusion, discrimination, marginalisation • • How to put the partners at the same level of understanding • • Complicated exercise which requires a long preparation • • Tool difficult to fill if there is no evidence to be given (quality M&E, capitalization) • • Often there is no relation between the questions and the criteria of notation • • Difficulties to evaluate alone the quality of a consortium program when CARE is lead

7. Out standing issues • To educate donors and checking their willingness to fund programs and in which conditions • Need for developing suitable communication and marketing mechanisms for donors and decision makers • Active engagement of the members of CARE Int' L is necessary