Organizational Implications

ER&A (Program Support)
Managing transition:
Stages, management function, competencies, leadership, roles and responsibilities, culture, resources
Human resources:
Retention of right talents for shift across time and project cycle
Multiple programming levels – therefore clarity of mandate for assuring program quality
What are the priorities?
How do we work together to achieve them?

Evidence base:
Invest in building accountability and impact measurement at different levels – generate global knowledge (synthesized)
Why – clear identity and accountability; demonstrate impact; change our story

Following on the RMU restructuring, a need to clarify the roles and mandates of the RMU team in terms of supporting/advancing the project à program shift
Agree fundraising and communications implications are huge. Really, really, really important. Seriously
Financial systems and structure needs to be aligned to a program approach
– is the proposed new structure enabling to the shift? (financial controller reporting outside CO)

Understanding, reaching consensus and accepting new ways of working

Human resources:
Need for new competencies, partners and staff to meet the needs of program:
- UCP analysis
- Scale
- Communication messages
- Knowledge sharing

Retain key staff from project to project inside a program (competency and performance systems)
Program identity vs project identity
Team based working
Improve accountability for ‘initiative’ delivery
Implications for CI members (lead and non-lead)

Clarify authority and accountability roles between CIM, CI units, COs, regional partners, RLTs and interactions with those stakeholders
- Tension between UR and restricted fundraising priorities - UR savings?
- Challenge in finding private donors for programs vs. projects
- Changing policies for use of UNR: cover SPC totally, learning, personnel

CARE USA needs to live up to its commitment to increase flexible resources to country offices in support of the shift
Put your money where your mouth is: hold us accountable.
Resource mobilization:
- Evolving strategies: we are taking different strategies as different groups
- Better communication (advocacy) with restricted (government) donors

Dialogue with donors:
Lobby institutional donors (Paris Declaration) for co-funding program initiative with more long-term flexible funds
Advocate through project proposals about fit within program
Private donors/foundations/trusts
à support CI members to “sell” program approach
Leveraging potential of multiple sources
CARE ‘identity’ and (QCC???) funds

Encourage them to co-fund a program through support of a project; advocate for new long term and flexible funding within the Paris Declaration process; support to CI members to explain and advocate around the program approach vis-à-vis private philanthropy

Roles of technical units should be revisited to accommodate the shifts needed in RMU and COs.
Communications impact:
- Do not confuse “simple” with dumbed-down
- Communication impact is internal, too. GAER needs deep understanding of program work to communicate effectively / clearly / simply. Linked to knowledge sharing

Proactive talent management and retention: systems, skills, flexible resources for long-term program development
Time to work together
Impact assessment M&E:
- Need for greater evidence for advocacy and policy change – and for quality assurance
- Staffing patterns?
- Continuous quality? (monitoring)
- Contracting out?

Business policy and process changes, especially for
- finance (e.g.,SERENIC),
- HR (e.g., JDs and competencies), and
- fundraising (e.g., fund codes).

The nitty gritty of daily operations in these areas will need to change.
Organizing work beyond geographic borders
We need to change – from caterpillar to butterfly

Learning Labs Home | Impact Measurement Wiki | How to Use a Wiki