Allison Burden
March 2009
Program resource manual
Core Group Inputs
Introduction
In February 2009, a core group was set up to lead the process of the development of a program resource manual. Under the leadership of Jean Michel Vigreux, VP Program Quality and Impact, CARE US, The facilitator of the group defined some terms of reference for the group. When all members has confirmed their readiness to participate, the facilitator requested that they contribute ideas on the following questions:
1. What objectives do you think the availability of a CARE program resource manual can achieve? For whom?
2. What should be the minimum content for a program resource manual? What chapters do you think it would have to contain? (e.g. analysis, design, impact evaluation; sectoral chapters; specific chapters on gender and governance, other…). If you have time, it would be great for you to develop a contents page.
3. Who might support us in pulling together existing guidance and tools? Who are the people who would have tools and guidance, and on what subject?
Given the departure of the facilitator to a new job, group members were also asked how they thought the process could be facilitated into the future.
Participation
9 out of 11 participants responded, however, the two other participants did not receive the original mail due to error, so we await their input.
Summary of inputs:
Future Facilitation
There were no suggestions from the group regarding the handover of this work in the future. One unofficial comment sent solely to the facilitator suggested that a replacement should be recruited for Allison Burden.
Objectives
2 people suggested that Jean Michel and Allison define the objectives, potential users and content as a starting point for discussion. This was born of a lack of understanding regarding the need for a resource manual given the existence of other resources – such as the Program Quality Digital Library – and a desire to understand the perceived gap that the resource guide would fill. It was also born of a sense that there would be very diverse understandings of what would be required. Finally, one of the 2 people suggested that it was not in fact a priority – since it had not been surfaced in a SWARMU regional meeting.
6 people suggest that the focus should be on program design (as opposed to project design), in answer to the question: How do you design a program based on these characteristics? Or put as an objective: to enable effective and appropriate adoption of the program approach. An additional perspective to this suggestion from two people was that any project design work within it should relate to the ways in which project design work would change in the light of programmatic design.
6 people either suggested that simplicity, accessibility, practicality and usefulness were important or warned against over complication. Clearly there is a sense that there is a lot of ‘stuff out there’ and this would need to be mapped and organized as a part of this process. One person put it like this: if it is round and rolls downhill in a straight line then that is a good enough place to start.
In recognition that the resource guide would primarily serve field based staff, one member of the group suggested that their thoughts should hold the highest weight and this person recognized that at least two of the field based staff did not seem to understand the potential use of such a manual.
Audience
There were fewer responses on this issue, however those that did response felt that the primary target for such a resource guide would be country office based program staff and more specifically project/program managers and those above them.
Content
There were varied responses on content. First a recognition from some that financial resources are limited and therefore the suggestion from some to keep it focused and simple in an initial stage. Second, a sense that in fact most content exists and the issue is to define the core, required content and to organize it in an accessible way, although some voices felt that particularly around the program shift more guidance would need to be developed. Third, a sense that there is a need to develop practical guidance, rather than conceptual – this comment was made particularly in reference to the PQDL, which does provide more conceptual and theoretical guidance but less practical tools.
One person suggested that a comprehensive mapping of present guides (and their use) would be a good starting point, this was supported by two other members of the group. From this initial mapping, gaps could then be identified. However, one person felt that the issue was not to identify gaps, rather just to get things that are already out there together (including from beyond CARE) into a core resource guide that is ‘good enough’.
Further, one person suggested that it would not make sense to include ‘sectoral’ guidance, which are housed within technical units in PQI.
People also suggested concrete content areas including:
· Organizing content around the 8 program characteristics with specific attention to developing a theory of change, gender, (CO Level) advocacy and knowledge management and learning.
· Organizing content around the project/program cycle (Nomsa’s clock from Southern Africa) – although another member suggest that the project and program cycle are quite different.
· Program design and management: operationalizing P2P[1] – including chapters on:
o program management
o UCP analysis
§ Research
o Program Design
§ Fundraising
o Program implementation
o Impact monitoring, dashboard indicators to core management streams, documenting progress
Technology and accessibility
While this was not a question put to the group, there were some references to technology. One person mentioned the CARE Emergency Toolkit as the proposed model. One person suggest that the P-shift wiki could be a temporary host as a future platform is developed – but that this is now under resourced into 2010. A good number did underscore the need for the guide to be accessible to Country Offices and that this would mean careful thought to the technology.
Who can help us?
There were fewer answers given to this question. One person felt that an intern could take on the work. Another implied that there is still some work to be done to develop program guidance, so an initial stage would be this work based on experiences of those doing the program work.
CARE Australia is already working on a program resource guide called HeiDI – How do I? which is geared to HQ based staff, there is the suggestion that a CARE US program guide could usefully connect into HeiDI (contact Steve Williams or Andrew Rowell).
Conclusions/suggestions for moving forward
As facilitator of the group, I am drawing some conclusions and suggestions for Jean Michel, the replacement facilitator and the group more broadly. I hope that they are useful as this work takes shape.
First I would like to thank all team members for responding and for the time taken. My apologies to Sofia and Kevin who I inadvertently excluded from my original mail. I look forward to hearing from you and will include any comments you have in a final report.
In terms of moving forward, there seems to be some question about the use of such a resource guide and this coupled with concerns about resourcing and facilitation means that the first thing will be to decide if this is a priority at this time. My opinion is that there are elements that the group felt could be useful (see below), but it will need significant investment of time and energy, and given other pressing demands and reduced resources, moving ahead should be weighed up against other priorities. My sense from the responses is that people were not very forthcoming regarding who might take this work forward or indeed provide input to it, and three people were more explicit in questioning the usefulness of this work given time constraints; this does raise questions about whether this is a priority. If it is indeed a priority, then it should be costed and adequately resourced.
In terms of content, there does seem to be broad consensus that guidance on the program approach is required. The suggestion that chapters could following the characteristics is good because there is wide recognition of these characteristics, Elaine’s suggested chapter headings are also practical. If the program approach is to be the focus, the job would include both the pulling together of existing tools (such as gender, advocacy/policy, and theory of change) from internal and external sources and the development of guidance in line with CARE’s definition of a program. If this is the case, the development of guidance would need to be resourced. I would also underscore the strong consensus that anything that is pulled together should be simple and accessible – useable on a weekly basis.
When it comes to technology, I am probably not the best placed person to comment, however, I did have discussions with Megan Chrisholm who led the CARE Emergency Toolkit development. She suggested that she significantly underestimated costs for strong resource guide writing skills (to render the resources consistent and ‘recognisable’, here the point is that it should be more that simple editing), technology and translation and that these were the biggest areas of investment. Her proposal to me was that this would cost at least $250,000. She underscored that this investment is required to make it accessible and useful to the user.
Annex
Full content proposals(please refer to attach Adobe diagram):
Chapters according to Program Characteristics[2]
1. A clearly defined goal for impact on the lives of a specific group, realized at broad scale.
2. A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty and social injustice at multiple levels with multiple stakeholders.
3. An explicit theory of change that is rigorously tested and adapted to reflect ongoing learning.
4. A coherent set of initiatives that enable CARE and our allies to contribute significantly to the transformation articulated in the theory of change.
5. Ability to promote organizational and social learning, to generate knowledge and evidence of impact.
6. Contribution to broad movements for social change through our work with and strengthening of partners, networks and alliances.
7. A strategy to leverage and influence the use and allocation of financial and other resources within society for maximizing change at a broader scale.
8. Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders.
Program Design and Management: Operationalizing P2P[3]
1. P2P Manager – moving from a sequential steps to managing interconnected parallel streams (see attached)
a) Program Management vs. Project Management
b) Role of the Project Cycle in Program Management
c) Importance of Feedback Loops – Practical suggestions for structuring internal communication
d) Time and Resource Management – creating space for P2P shift in the context of practical field realities
2. Management Stream 1: UCP Analysis
a) Whose poverty? Importance of clearly identifying target groups. Tools: Stakeholder-based livelihood, social positions and enabling environment analysis; various tools for UCP analysis
b) Integrating UCP analysis into ongoing program work; involving staff and stakeholders in learning processes
c) Creating a culture of learning – LO toolkits
d) Examples of key outputs: target group descriptions; UCP mapping for target groups; UCP mapping for multiple target groups for specific ‘domains of interaction’ (e.g. labor markets, land access, education, civic participation, etc.)
3. Complementary Process 1: Research
a) When do we know ‘enough’ to move from UCP analysis to design? From design to implementation?
b) Collecting and integrating existing internal and external data to improve ongoing UCP analysis and program design
c) Identifying key gaps in UCP analyses and program design
d) Practical suggestions for catalyzing new research and learning activities (partnership with researchers; pilot testing; ground-truthing, etc.)
4. Management Stream 2: Program Design
a) Which target group to choose? Summary of reference points
b) Distinction between target group and leverage points
c) Identifying leverage / intervention points
d) Practical tools for developing a theory of change, mapping pathways (target group visioning, dialogues valorisantes, life event mapping, etc., sequential intervention processes, etc.), identifying roadblocks to change
e) Identifying strategies to address key roadblocks
f) UF perspective: have leverage points and roadblocks considered HC / SP / EE? Theory of change tools for each dimension.
g) Testing multiple intervention strategies (weighted analysis, impact maximizing, etc.)
h) Examples of key outputs: descriptions of leverage points (updated); theory of change / pathways in 3-dimensions (updated); descriptions of proposed interventions (program initiative concept packages; advocacy and partnership strategies; etc.)
5. Complementary Process 2: Fundraising
a) Matching program design elements to donor interests (selling leveraged funding; ensuring contract accountability)
b) Putting the funding puzzle pieces together – practical tools for mapping and tips for filling gaps
c) Budgeting from matrices and ensuring contract accountability (1 person responsible = 1 packet of outputs = 1 budget)
d) Role of partnership – leveraging complementary actions (in-kind leverage) vs. complementary funding
6. Management Stream 3: Program Implementation
a) Survey of operational structures for program implementation – matching structures to context and budgets
b) Vertical and horizontal integration – when and where?
c) The project cycle as a bungee jump – balancing learning and implementation in a program context
d) Program and project activity planning
e) Role of annual strategic planning
f) Role of meetings; coordination tools; communication
g) Human resource development in the program context
h) Simplifying budget tracking and operational systems
7. Feedback Process: Impact Monitoring; Dashboard Indicators to Core Management Streams; Documenting Progress
a) Program Baseline and Monitoring Overall Progress (key activities)
b) Ongoing monitoring of core design and implementation processes – dashboard approach (strategic orientations; programming approaches and quality; operational processes, learning and development, pipeline and resource development, M&E)
c) Documenting and disseminating results – streamlining info capture at the level of implementation – transforming info into useable marketing / sales tools
[1] See annex for the full contribution including a useful diagram.
[2] Proposed by Lauren Hendricks, Director Access Africa.
[3] Proposed by Elaine Kelsey, ACD CARE Malawi