CARE Tanzania The Courage to Lead

1. CARE TanzaniaThe Courage to Lead Building a whole greater than the sum of parts Operationalization of the Program Approach Michael Drinkwater and Diana Wu 25 February 2011

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Timeline of Development • Refugee response • Relief organization • Livelihood security • Rights-based approaches • Focus on UCPs • Analyses, partners, mobilizing • Sector approach • Signature Programs • 3 IGs • Wezesha • Program Approach • Merger to 1 IG • Technical Units, team leaders, Program Offices • 1994 • 1999 • 2003 • 2008/09 • 2010 - Natural resources, Envir. - Education - Health/ Social Protection - WE/ Microfinance + policy analysis/advocacy + good governance + active citizenship - Program driven organization - Empowerment approach - Institutionalize reflective learning practice - Influence national policies and systems - enabling program support systems - Agriculture, NRE and CC - Economic Development and WE - Education - Maternal Health/SRHR + Governance, policy/advocacy + Gender

6. CARE Tanzania in five years Envisioning the future

7. Structures Systems Ways of Working Achievements Relations, Reputation • 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 • 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 • 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. • 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?)

8. 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?

9. Key Questions Operationalizing strategy Implementing a single program Geographic integrity Model development Finance and donor marketing Aligning structures Impact monitoring and learning Communicating the P-Shift Role of partners and partnerships

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

11. Relation to LRSP • LRSP Principles • Become a program-driven organization • Promote empowerment approaches • Institutionalize a culture of reflective learning/practice • Influence national policies and systems • 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

12. Current Program IMPACT GROUP: Marginalized and vulnerable women and girls living in rural underserved and environmentally restricted areas at critical life stages Livelihood • + Technical Units • Girls’ education and leadership • Maternal/SRH • Econ. dev &WE • NRE & CC • + Cross-cutting Themes • Governance and policy/advocacy • Gender Mining & industry dependent or living adjacent to Sub-impact groups Pastoralist & Agro-pastoralist Agriculture & forest dependent Fisheries dependent Lake zone North-western zone Girls aged 7-14 years old (in and out of school) Mid-central zone East coast zone Life cycle/stage Adolescence Southern zone Geographic area Adulthood (married women and female heads of HH)

13. Girl’s Education & Leadership Economic Development & WE Gender MV women & girls Geographic area Maternal & SRH Governance & Policy Advocacy Natural Resources & Climate Change

14. Key Questions • 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 • 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 • WHERE? • IG Definition • Rural • Underserved • Environmentally restricted areas • Geographic area • Northwestern Zone • Lake Zone • Mid-center Zone • East Coast Zone • Southern Zone

15. SUB-IMPACT GROUPS across livelihoods and age groups Agric. &forest Mining industry Fishing Pastoral THEMES/TECHNICAL AREAS G A W G A W G A W G A W Girls’ education and leadership Sexual/Reproductive Health Rights Economic development and WE NRM and Climate Change REGIONS North-west Governance, policy/ advocacy Lake Mid-central Gender (GED) East coast South EMERGING MODELS • FOR 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

16. Legend = Projects focused on IG * = Pastoralist-specific interventions Layering all themes in all areas for all sub-groups = a big undertaking, responsibility & investment

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Developing and Leveraging Models Wider Spreading The broader impact group Policy Influencing Our area based work Model Development

21. Operationalizing Strategy:Recommendations - 2 • Program Offices should specialize on the development, refinement and building evidence of effectiveness around particular models and approaches egKahama 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

22. CARE Tanzania: Theory of Change Marginalized and vulnerable women & girls in rural, Under-served and environmentally restricted areas are empowered to live sustainable, healthy and secure lives IMPACT GOAL DOC 2 Cultural and social norms recognize and uphold rights of the impact group, enabling them to participate equally in family, local and national decision making DOC 3 Civil society, private sector, local and national governance systems and institutions are responsive to the needs and rights of the IG. DOC 4 Critical ecosystems and natural resources (forest, marine, watersheds, agricultural and range lands) on which marginalized and vulnerable women and girls depend are healthy and intact DOC 1 The IG has access to basic services, resources, skills, knowledge and confidence to diversify their livelihoods, and become resilient to environmental shocks DOMAIN OF CHANGE P5. Develop Girls & Women’s Networks P6. Promote civic engagement of women and girls P7. Raise awareness and advocate for action at local /grassroots P1. Build capacity for income, savings and food security P2. Improve Education Access & Quality P3. Improve Access & Quality of Health, Water & Sanitation P4. Strengthen NRM & CC Adaptation P8. Promote citizen engagement for increased participation, transparency and accountability P9. Build capacity of LGAs to deliver quality basic services P10. Promote pro-poor, gender sensitive policies P11. Strengthen NR governance and policy implementation P12. Promote Pro-Poor Climate change adaptation and mitigation P13. Development and test different approaches / models for scale-up PATHWAYS

23. Finance and Donor marketing

24. Funding by Donor: 2009-2012 (USD)

25. Funding by Sources: 2009-2012 USD, (by 100,000s)

26. Foundations (FY2011)

27. 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)

28. 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’

29. 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!)

30. Aligning structures

31. CD ACD Program ACD PS CO SLT Dar structure Cross-cutting theme Advisor/Coordinator (Gender and Gov/Policy Advocacy) 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 PQL Unit (Supported by IT Unit) NR & CC MSRH GEL ED &WE POLT Each PO is led by TL and managed by POLT PO structure PO Kigoma PO Morogoro PO Mwanza PO Kahama PO Zanzibar

32. Key Positions

33. Working programmatically 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 To Program Support Finance 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 Program PQL 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

34. Impact Monitoring and Learning

35. 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

36. Impact Monitoring - 2 Currently • 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

37. Learning and collaboration - 1 WITHIN/ACROSS All Units: Sharepoint being developed to facilitate sharing of reports

38. 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?

39. 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.

40. Communicating the P-Shift

41. ENGAGEMENT • ACD-Program, PQL Coordinator: program strategy and IML. • Team Leaders: reg. sub-programs • TU/Theme Leads: model dev’t, learning, networking, leveraging. LEAD INTERNAL EXTERNAL • CD and TU Managers: involved in design, strategic tech/comms. support. • PS Leadership: develop systems for working as a program (HR, finance) OWN • PI managers, officers: coordinate & integrate with each other • PO-PS: HR and finance across initiatives CONTRIBUTE CI: aligning around program approach (WAGE, WAA, RMU support) PROMOTE 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. FOLLOW • Donors: CARE-TZ has begun to share Program thinking with some donors OBSERVE 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.

42. Communicating the Program Externally 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 • 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)

43. Partners and partnerships

44. 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

45. Changing the Nature of Relationships A closed world in which we create our own reality with finite resources Working with ‘partners’ as sub-recipients The artificial, time bound, world of projects Working with partners as equals The ‘real’ world of programs An open world where we work with the agendas, resources and institutions of others

46. 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.

47. 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!

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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)