CARE International UK and the Programme Approach Briefing Note prepared for The Asia Programme and Quality Working Group Meeting Kathmandu, February 2010 1. Introduction CARE International UK (CIUK) was present at the seminal Istanbul workshop in April 2008 when thinking around the Programme Approach (PA) crystallised. Since that time we have observed the growing buy-in of significant parts of the CARE world and a wealth of experimentation around an emerging body of thinking and practice. CIUK’s Senior Management Team (SMT) and Programme Department (PD) have also benefitted from briefings from key resource persons updating us on progress at various points in 2008 and 2009 in London.

CARE UK has been privileged to enjoy a close relationship with the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) Region, in large part, due to the opportunities for engagement presented by the flexible funding from its DfID Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA). This region has been in the vanguard of experimentation with a programmatic approach and CARE UK colleagues working closely with LAC Country Offices, the RMU and through involvement in the Regional Programme Quality platform have been able to engage with the regions thinking and practice as it has evolved. Various CARE UK personnel has also had strong working relationships with several learning laboratory countries, such as CARE Bangladesh, Nepal and Ethiopia where we have witnessed and to some extent contributed to the approaches as they have taken shape. Through these engagements and participation in various other regional Programme Quality fora certain colleagues have become more enmeshed in the evolution of PA work across much of CARE International. .

As a Department, we began to realise that we had a fairly passive and uncoordinated approach towards the increasingly widespread deepening of thinking and practice that was being rolled out in front of us. CARE UK, like other CI Members felt the absence of the Programme Working Group (PWG) as a mechanism that had played an important part in keeping us involved. We recognised however, that it was incumbent upon us as a CI member to take a pro-active role in reflecting upon and then moving to define our role and contribution in the context of the Programme Approach.

With this in mind CARE UK embarked upon a deliberate process of learning about the Programme Approach in the second half of 2009. This process culminated in a week long series of reflections and planning in late November 2009 when we committed ourselves to start moving beyond learning and entering into defining what our roles should be.

CARE UK still feels we are in the early stages of the journey towards full engagement with this the most important of programme quality processes that is moving on apace within CI. However, we feel we can and should make a small contribution to this collective commitment by briefly sharing both the learning process and the emerging thinking on our role as a CI member in the Programme Approach. CARE UK, at present, is privileged in its having relatively more flexible funding than most members and this provides us with the opportunity to engage significantly in Programme Quality processes. With that opportunity comes a responsibility to contribute to the collective learning effort beyond our one to one interactions with COs and RMUs. We welcome feedback on what we share as we look to play a role as a CI member Learning Laboratory if that is of value to the organisation.

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 1 2. Learning process adopted by CARE UK towards engagement with the Programme Approach

CARE UK’s Programme Department committed itself to a learning process around the Programme Approach in August 2009. From this point onwards until the week of 9th November, CARE UK’s Programme Department held bi-weekly meetings to build up collective understanding of the PA. In the process of learning about how others are developing thinking and practice we started to define what our own roles could be. We also started to look at perceptions of what CI member roles should be within the PA.

Looking back on this period we can identify a number of key characteristics that contributed to a reasonably effective process, as follows:

 The process was mandatory for all staff in Programme Department  It had active support from the Programme Director and other members of the Programme Department Management Team  Gatherings were regular (more or less every two weeks) between August and November, with the occasional repeat session to capture those who could not attend key sessions.  The oversight of the process was not hierarchical but drew on capacities and enthusiasm from across the department  We drew on the support of a key resource person from the outset and at various points in the process  Critically explored the P-Shift Briefing Papers  Drew on staff experience of working on and contributing to the Programme Approach with Country Offices and RMUs  At the end of the process directly involved key resource persons from Country Offices in helping us understand the Programme Approach in practice and to define our roles and contributions  Dedicated a full week to draw together the strands of our learning and make a first attempt at defining plans and roles for future engagement with the Programme Approach

3. CARE UK’s contribution to the Programme Approach

3.1. Structure and capacity of CARE UK’s Programme Department CARE UK’s Programme Department restructured itself in the wake of the finalisation of the organisation’s Strategic Plan 2008-2013. It now has four principle teams (Programme Quality; Regions; Humanitarian and Contract Management) as well as an Advocacy Manager. The organisation has also chosen to concentrate its work principally around three thematic areas, conflict, governance and private sector engagement as well as having an enhanced capacity around humanitarian response. It has created three teams under Programme Quality to deliver on its thematic commitment, areas where it aspires to play a leadership role within CARE International. These three teams are the principle budget holders of the PPA, though they also manage a number of other donor funded projects which are linked to their strategies. CARE UK also created a Humanitarian/Emergency team which currently has three sub-teams: Climate Change and Hunger; Shelter and Emergency response as well as a staff member working on Accountability. This team firmly subscribes to

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 2 the inter-dependent approach that defines CIs work on emergencies. In other areas of its work, Climate Change, Hunger and DRR the humanitarian tam works collaboratively in support of other CI members which are taking the lead on these thematic areas. The Regions Team is staffed by personnel with geographic roles who have a mandate for overseeing CARE UK’s assistance to Country Offices in their regions as well as being the main engine for fundraising from non-humanitarian institutional donors (DfID and EU). The Regions team also holds PPA funds for regional support and for the Country Office Partnership Agreements (COPAs) which define our partnership and provide flexible funding to twelve COs with which CARE UK has overlapping strategic interests.

3.2. Existing Programme Department contributions to the PA Prior to the more deliberate attempt to define CARE UK’s contribution to the PA, the organisation was engaging through the work of some teams, individuals and through some specific initiatives. As a Department, and sometimes even at team level, we were not though very self-consciously aware of how, where and to what extent we were involved. The following section describes ways in which the different teams have been engaging. .

Governance is increasingly seen as an Underlying Cause of Poverty (UCP) or cross- cutting issue by Country Offices and sometimes they develop specific governance programmes. The work of the team has fed into analysis through work such as power analysis undertaken in Guatemala, Angola and Bangladesh. They, in common with others in Programme Quality, have also focused on learning and innovation and have been rolling out learning and reflection through initiatives such as the Governance Action Research Initiative (GARI) which is taking place in several COs. Such work has fed into UCP analysis, strategies and theories of change. The Governance team’s strategic focus on negotiated development and on building effective and accountable relations between state and citizens has led to work with COs around engagement with movements for social change and to the identification of external actors to partner with in policy space in for example Nepal, Rwanda, Angola, Peru and Ecuador.

The Conflict team’s work on strategic peacebuilding and conflict sensitivity promotes rigorous analysis, definition of clear theories of change and accountability. Conflict analysis frameworks and tools, Do No Harm, Safe and Effective Development in Conflict (SEDC) promoted by the team, complement UCP. Since 2006 the conflict team has supported research on aspects of peacebuilding in Kosovo, Georgia and Burundi. The current Peacebuilding DME programme critically evaluates theories of change in DRC, Nepal and Uganda and aims to develop new impact measurement systems. This builds on longer standing work towards developing Theories of Change in Georgia and Nepal. The Conflict team is committed to develop a Centre of Expertise on conflict to promote knowledge management. Work towards the establishment of a Community of Practice and the holding of a strategic peacebuilding workshop will be significant steps towards delivery on this commitment.

CARE UK’s Private Sector Engagement team plays an active support role (particularly in LAC where it leads) in the CI Market Engagement Strategy led by CARE USA’s Economic Development Unit (EDU). This supports CO work by developing strategic thinking, testing assumptions and theories of change in this area of work. CARE UK’s work with the corporate sector has led it to develop innovative ways of partnering with the private sector. This work goes beyond philanthropy to work with companies on development solutions that can be taken to scale.

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 3 CARE UK’s humanitarian strategy focuses on ‘people living on the edge’ i.e. people pushed into poverty and deprivation by repeated exposure to disaster and conflict. This requires CARE UK to promote approaches that span the humanitarian to development divide. To this end, along with other CI members, CARE UK promotes approaches to analysis that incorporate risk and vulnerability, particularly Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the Horn of Africa, Niger as well as supporting work on Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis (CCVA) in LAC, Niger and Mozambique. The team see Emergency Preparedness Planning as a key entry point for vulnerability and risk reduction analysis. CARE UK has been working in association with CEG on humanitarian accountability systems for some years. This work is increasingly a characteristic of CARE’s Emergency Responses and is becoming mainstreamed in the thinking and practice of COs. The pioneering work in the Humanitarian sector has the catalyst for broadening out our work in this area to other areas and is informing the work of the Governance and Conflict teams.

CARE UK’s Regions team has been increasingly providing support and engaging with thinking emerging from the CARE regions at Programme Quality fora. Its most long standing relationship of this kind is with LAC Region where there has been active engagement and support has been channelled through the region and several country offices. In the lifetime of the current PPA, CARE UK has been using its Country Office Partnership Agreements (COPAs), managed by the Regions team, to resource CO work around the PA (Ethiopia, Peru, Ecuador, Rwanda, Bolivia and others forthcoming).

4. Thinking ahead – CARE International UK as a Learning Laboratory The role and contribution of CI members around the Programme Approach was not substantively defined in the Briefs. What attention there was largely focused on the role of CI Members with management or operational responsibilities i.e. Lead Members and has looked at their involvement in managing or running programmes. The thinking around the functions of other CI Members (CIMs) is somewhat virgin territory. We are aware that all other CIMs are looking at ways of engaging with the PA, CARE UK has for example been involved in linking up with CARE Netherlands around the place of DRR in the Programme Approach. CARE UK has though been invited to play a role as Learning Laboratory amongst non-lead CI Members, a role it is willing to take on given our relatively capacity to engage with PA processes.

4.1. CARE UK and role of Learning Laboratories The role of the Learning Labs has been defined as one that fulfils a set of obligations (Brief 2). CARE UK is able to work to fulfil them in the following ways:

1. To enact and test the eight characteristics of a programme approach On the basis of thinking to date the contributions that CARE UK feels it can make to the eight characteristics of the Programme Approach are summarized the table below. As can be seen CARE UK considers that it can make an active contribution to and explore six of the eight characteristics. It can and will make a contribution to the others: - Characteristic 1. Defining Impact Goal - Characteristic 4. Developing coherent sets of Initiatives. Perhaps though our lesser focus on these relates to the fact that CARE UK, like some other Members, does not manage or take a lead on defining programmes. We do not define our thematic foci as programmes in the PA sense, though we will often engage closely with certain CO programmes close to our areas of competence.

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 4 CIUK relationship to the 8 characteristics of the Programme Approach Characteristic Governance Conflict PSE Humanitarian Regions 1 Defining Impact Goal 2 UCP/V analysis Governance intrinsic to Mainstreaming of Contribution to UCP/V analysis: build Conflict Sensitivity vulnerability analysis on existing examples work a clear through DRR and for a clear planned role contribution to CCVA and EPP vulnerability analysis 3 Theory of Change Past contribution and Work on ToC core to (ToC) future role to conflict team supporting COs ToC particularly around peacebuilding 4 Coherent set of Play a key role in initiatives promoting coherence across CARE UK support around PA 5 Learning for Strengthening existing Planned CIUK led CoE Role for team where Commitment to knowledge and role in this area to strengthen CI COs involved in market learning around evidence of impact including links to Ubora learning around conflict engagement addressing underlying causes of chronic vulnerability 6 Movements of social Maintain function in Aim to provide change promoting linkages leadership on working with social movements with Private Sector actors 7 Leverage financial and PPA funding PPA funding and links PPA and corporate Through COPAs; and other resources to learning projects fundraising from donor calls for proposals 8 Accountability systems Strengthen Conflict Sensitivity Corporate Humanitarian accountability systems approaches broadens accountability focus of accountability capacity part of Governance responsibilities around PSE strategy in team team strategy accountability .

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 5 2. To assist satellites to adopt proven practices, and to learn from them CARE UK is already working with both CO Learning Labs and satellites. It is providing training and learning opportunities in all of its priority areas of work. As has been described earlier learning from the experiences and practices of COs. In our work and learning we need to become more deliberate in terms of linking it to the PA. Plans to develop capacities as a Centre of Expertise including setting up a Community of Practice for conflict and to contribute similar capacities for governance will further our contributions in fulfilment of these roles for Learning Labs and satellites. With CARE UK playing the role of a CI Member Learning Lab the issue arises of other CI Members being considered satellites. We would be interested to engage other CI members in this way, to the extent that is useful for them. 3. To test alignments between signature, regional, and global sectoral programs and business units CARE UK’s global thematic foci could be considered as a variation on the areas to be tested for alignment. 4. To maintain relationships and exchanges with regional learning teams and with DRDs for program quality and program support. CARE UK is already working closely with Regional Learning Teams and in some cases with DRDs Programme Quality, a long standing relationship with LAC be a noteworthy example of this. Though we are working with all regions, CARE UK needs to become more deliberate in making contributions at global and regional level and to building deliberate relationships with DRDs within the limits of its capacity. 5. To test a holistic organizational performance measurement system CARE UK has been engaging actively with the development of global indicators particularly in the area of governance. Our conflict work is actively contributing to thinking on impact measurement for peacebuilding work. We are working with CARE USA to invest in understanding and then finding ways of linking with Ubora systems.

4.2. CARE UK and Initiative to Embed the Programme Approach More recently the idea of undertaking an Initiative to Embed the Programme Approach has been proposed and CIUK requested to be involved in this project. We see that we can contribute to each of the proposed Work Streams in the following ways: Workstream 1 - Learn through Operational Models: we can and will document and disseminate learning even if we are not strictly speaking promoting ‘operational’ models. This will involve, as explained, a refinement of our practice to more deliberately align with PA Workstream 2 – Build Accountability: we are well placed to engage in elements of this workstream. We are committed to further developing guidance and cross-cutting standards in our thematic priorities and support others who lead on other cross cutting areas of relevance e.g. DRR as well as to help define in a collaborative manner processes around impact measurement. We can take an active role in being supportive of the contributions of other CI members. Workstream 3 – Create Alignment and External Support: contributions to strengthening organisational commitment, CI contributions, funding and advocacy are all areas where the CARE UK Programme Department are well placed to participate. This can be done in association with a sympathetic SMT, through our involvement in CI fora such as the European Programme Working Group (EUPWG) and the CI Programme and Operations Committee (POC) as well as looking at ways of engaging a progressive donor (DfID) as well looking at ways of linking this work into our already active involvement in Aid the Effectiveness arena.

CARE International UK and the Programme Approach – Asia PQWG Feb 2010 6