Field Level Learning in Sri Lanka Case Study 2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Learning Support & Capacity Building Programme 30 Alfred Place, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka T1 : +94 (0)11 257 4182 T2 : +94 (0)11 493 8896 Fax:+94 (0)11 493 8897 E [email protected] W www.redr.org.uk FIELD LEVEL LEARNING IN SRI LANKA CASE STUDY 2007 Learning Support & Capacity Building (LSCB) Programme in Sri Lanka DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 1 Introduction In response to the Tsunami (26 December 2004) which resulted in massive loss of life and property along the Sri Lankan coast line, RedR UK, in affiliation with the Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies Sri Lanka (CHA) established a Learning Support and Capacity Building Programme (LSCB). Formal humanitarian training programmes and District (field level) Learning Support Offices (DLSO) form the backbone of the programme. The concept of providing resources and structured support for humanitarian learning was new to Sri Lanka. This case study considers the goals, roles, principles and approaches of the District Learning Support Offices (DLSO) operating in 4 districts in Sri Lanka against good practice field level learning. Interviews and an examination of literature about good practice field level humanitarian inform the case study. Background Why a Learning Support and Capacity Building Programme in Sri Lanka? Humanitarian agencies’ response to the tsunami disaster that struck Sri Lanka on 26 December 2004 causing the displacement of 500,000 people has featured inadequate, inconsistent and inappropriate humanitarian responses, with compromised quality in the delivery of services 1 . Government and NGOs remain inadequately prepared to respond to the rapidly changing needs of posttsunami reconstruction and recovery activities. One key factor has been the failure to build sufficient local capacity2 , a need which remains unanswered more than two years later. There is an urgent and continuing need to build capacity to meet the current demands for reconstruction and recovery and also prepare local communities, humanitarian and government agencies to respond to any future emergencies. This has been exacerbated by an underlying problem in the limited mechanisms for sharing lessons learned from past experiences. There is also limited knowledge or understanding of good practice within the humanitarian sector, including international standards and appropriate developmental approaches such as community participation. These have led to delays in the recovery support required by tsunamiaffected populations. In February 2005 RedR UK and CHA signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to run a Learning Support and Capacity Building programme the overall aim of which is to improve the response capacity of Community based organisations (CBOs), NonGovernment organisations (NGOs), International Non Government Organisations (INGOs) and government agencies to current posttsunami reconstruction and community development needs and to prepare for potential future disasters in Sri Lanka. 3 How is learning supported? A long term strategy of the LSCB Programme is to establish a locally managed learning service, which is able to provide appropriate, contextualised and affordable learning support in local languages. The learning service is to be accessible to all agencies in need, not just those who can afford it. In 2005, the introduction by RedR /CHA of formal training programmes suited the traditional approach to learning within Sri Lanka. International and national content experts were contracted to design and deliver a range of relevant humanitarian capacity building programmes in English and local languages. These high calibre programmes capture INGO and NGO staff who are able to travel to the larger cities of Colombo and Kandy. 1 ‘Listening to those who lost’ – Survey and Analysis of Rebuilding and Relocation of Tsunami Affected Household in Sri Lanka, National Post, Tsunami Best Practices and Lessons Learnt Workshop, Colombo, June 2005. 2 Final Report – National Workshop on the Care and Maintenance of Transitional Shelter Sites, Colombo, October 2005 3 RedR UK – CHA MoU, February 20052008 DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 2 At the same time, RedR was aware of limited capacity at the local levels amongst NGOs and CBOs grass roots organisations prevalent in the districts, with a responsibility for development and emergency relief. Many of these organisations do not have the financial capacity, time, and in some cases neither language skills nor educational background to attend sophisticated centralised courses. “Lack of knowledge, understanding and empowerment are all factors which constrain people’s ability to take action that will mitigate their vulnerability. The programme therefore aims to support local NGOs and CBOs with access to information and learning support that will better enable them to represent and address the needs of their local communities in technical capacities such as emergency preparedness, reconstruction and sustainable livelihoods, but also in operational capacities such as security management, logistics and project management.” RedR UK Country Director, Sri Lanka In 2006, a Learning Support Manager (LSM) and three District Learning Support Officers (DLSOs) were recruited. The DLSOs, all of whom are National staff and speak English and either Sinhala or Tamil, were placed in the south (Galle and Hambantota) and in the North (Jaffna). Each officer was colocated and worked closely with the CHA District Officer. After only two months operation, security concerns forced the evacuation of the Jaffna based officer. Further recruitment in 2007 resulted in 4 districts (2 in the south and 2 in the east) with a functioning service. The form and function of the District Learning Support Offices’ services was driven by a mixture of pragmatism and ideology. Clearly it was not possible to replicate an expensive formal training programme in each District and the new recruits, while they had some training background, were not in a position to be able to deliver extensive humanitarian training. “You have to go to them; you cannot be here (Colombo)” Interviewee At the same time, there was a view held by RedR management that the DLSO programme should not be about training but rather support for local learning. The details of what those services might look like were not as clear, although some work had been done in determining some possible approaches to learning. 4 This early conceptual work signalled a development role for the DLSO which focussed on being a ‘broker’ of learning as opposed to a training coordinator. Potential approaches to learning included: • Direct group learning including workshops, briefings and road shows • Self directed group learning including discussion forums, action learning sets and communities of practice • Onetoone learning including coaching, mentoring and buddying • Self managed learning including interactive learning CD, videos, publications/resources The DLSO challenge was significant. Not only was there no evidence based models for effective field level learning in Sri Lanka, but the DLSO programme also had to operate in an environment where training was readily accepted as the dominant most credible paradigm for learning. A compounding factor was the need for district offices to demonstrate quantifiable outcomes (validity and efficiency) while working in a developmental way, which of necessity takes time before real impacts are evident. A range of new and developmental roles for the DLSO evolved. These are shown below in Figure 1., and described below: 4 Linda Richardson, Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit for the LSCB programme, November 2005 DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 3 Figure 1 – Roles of the District Learning Support Officers Training workshop design and delivery Learning Resource Facilitator Development • Communities of and practice Distribution • Action learning sets DLSO Monitoring and Evaluation of Assess learning Learning outcomes Needs Information • Phase 1 Management • Phase 2 • Phase 3 • Trainers data Base • Experts data Base Link agent • Agencies • CBOs • Government • NGOs /INGOs • Training workshop design and delivery: Lead or cofacilitate the delivery of humanitarian training in local language. (for example, Sphere Standards for Disaster Response, Community based Disaster Risk Management, Community Participatory Approaches and Project Management) • Learning Facilitator: Establish local learning networks using formats such as communities of practice and action learning sets • Assess Learning Needs: Implement a 3 phase LNA process to establish credibility in the District and gain a broad understanding of local learning needs • Link agent: Link agencies and stakeholders together to achieve key learning outcomes • Information management: develop and share a data base of local training and other humanitarian expertise • Resource distribution and development: distribute RedR resources and develop local language resources with local communities in response to local needs • Overarching monitoring and evaluation: establish a framework and process for monitoring and evaluating impacts of all learning support activities These roles are dynamic and while it is expected that DLSOs will progress each component, each District may prioritise different role components in response to demographic, social and environmental factors. DLSO Case Study Paula Thomson December 2007 4 FIELD LEVEL LEARNING The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) 5 undertook a study