DevTracker Link to Business Case: DevTracker Link to Log frame:

Transcription

1 Annual Review - Summary Sheet This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning over the course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete picture of actions and learning throughout the life of the programme. Title: Christian Aid: CHASE PPA Programme Value: 6,300,000 Review Date: June 2015 Programme Code: PPA ref 351 Start Date: April 2011 End Date: March 2016 Summary of Programme Performance Year Programme Score Risk Rating Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review Christian Aid continued to make excellent progress in year 4 ( ) meeting or exceeding nearly all of our milestones. To date, we have supported 361 poor and vulnerable communities to manage disasters and other risks in nine 1 (six existing, three new) fragile/conflict and high disaster-risk countries/regions. In year 4, we focused on deepening community work and revisiting community action and advocacy plans to address a wider range of risks and build advocacy capacity. This has allowed us to consolidate a risk-based approach in our programme work and improve how we measure changes in community resilience. In addition, we have strengthened accountability and beneficiary feedback mechanisms between communities, authorities, partners and Christian Aid. This has led to increased participation, better information sharing, stronger gender equity in communities and improved advocacy outcomes, while also influencing programme development and learning. Summary of recommendations for the next year We will document learning on thematic areas related to the impact of resilience in conflict, as well as on gender and power relations, and community empowerment and organisation. This will guide future work, organisationally and across the sector. It will inform the refresh of our corporate Thriving & Resilient Livelihoods Framework and support the embedding of our Gender Justice Strategy, while continuing to influence our global policy work. There will be a focus on evidencing social changes that have resulted from the PPA and adaptations made to the PVCA approach in challenging contexts. We will support strategic community level plans that strengthen links between local and national level networks. A. Introduction and Context Outline of the programme DevTracker Link to Business Case: DevTracker Link to Log frame: Christian Aid s corporate strategic framework Partnership for Change recognises humanitarian work as central to its identity and core business. Our work in the PPA extension period continues to focus on reducing disaster losses by contributing to the attainment of the Hyogo Framework for Action and the MDGs, and to influence learning in the sector by sharing best practice in building resilience in fragile and conflict-affected states. To date, the programme has worked through partnership and cooperation with 81 organisations and 361 communities across nine countries/regions. Through this, 13,133 (6,205f and 6,928m) direct beneficiaries have been trained to identify, plan for and address the wide range of disaster and conflict risks they face through mitigation and prevention activities. We have invested in building the capacity of organisations and communities to implement advocacy interventions at local and national level that address their vulnerability to disaster and conflict risks. PPA funds are used strategically to deliver learning and support our global humanitarian and resilience policy work /15: Burkina Faso, DRC, Kenya, OPT, Philippines (existing); Haiti, Honduras, Iraq (new) i

2 B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS Annual outcome assessment We are on course to achieve our outcome, having successfully achieved the milestones for this year supporting the development to date of 102 (10 new) multi-stakeholder partnerships. These have successfully led to 119 (30 new) recorded cases of influence at local and national levels with communities actively lobbying for resources, conducting rights-based advocacy and strengthening policy and legislative frameworks. For example, this contributed to the ratification and implementation of a new DRR law in Burkina Faso, and greater land security and protection for communities in OPT, Philippines, Haiti and DRC. Communities felt more empowered and prepared to address risks, reflected in their increased engagement with CSOs, NGOs, local and national authorities and the private sector. Evidence of this has been strengthened through our continued investment in outcomes reporting as validated in a recent years 1-3 External Review. The flexibility of strategic funding has enabled us to trial and test innovative and participatory ways to capture outcomes. Overall output score and description Score: A+. We continued to meet or exceed nearly all of our milestones. Implementation challenges in Honduras resulted in a 90% achievement in Output 3.3. Our partners began work in 59 new communities, with Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (PVCAs) Key conducted lessons in 56 of these. This represents 96,146 indirect beneficiaries. To date, we have facilitated training on advocacy and local/national DRR policies and practice to 113 local organisations and authorities and 332 communities leading to their increased influence in policy discussions. We have supported new multi-stakeholder advocacy networks and partnerships to build on community advocacy successes. We have also increased capacity building for programme and partner staff around accountability. We have strengthened our programme M&E by incorporating Theory of Change (ToC) analysis and piloting a participatory qualitative evaluation in Kenya. All of this has deepened our understanding of building resilience in complex environments. Key Lessons We continued using funds to ensure lessons generated through M&E, outcome assessments and beneficiary feedback are shared widely, informing programme design and organisational and sector-wide learning through forums including the Interagency Resilience Learning Group. We strengthened our understanding of the PVCA approach and its limitations, finding challenges in ensuring participation and information sharing in the context of pastoralist communities with a mobile population in Kenya and in areas of gang influence in Honduras. We also recognised the need to strengthen community links to local and national advocacy efforts so as to increase their access to a wider range of technical and financial support. Key actions We aim to further evidence thematic learning areas identified across both PPA funding streams, including resilience in conflict, the value of resilience in reducing vulnerability and increasing our understanding of how inclusive community preparedness, confidence and organisation can build resilience. We will gather this through research, evaluative studies and participatory M&E approaches which we will use to inform the refresh of our Thriving & Resilient Livelihoods Framework this year. We will also share findings across the sector and use it in our global policy work. The priority focus will be on documenting how we adapt our PVCA approach for difficult environments and the role of a PVCA-led approach in enabling social change, for example through shifting inequitable social norms and developing new community structures. We will also further embed gender into PVCAs, along with ensuring that power and conflict analyses are used to support community advocacy and network building. Has the logframe been updated since the last review? Yes: New assumptions; Outcome indicators 1 & 3 merged; Output indicators merged (1.1, 3.1 & 3.2 became 1.1; 2.1 & 2.2 became 2.1); Qualitative output indicators added (1.2 & 2.2). Revised output indicators: Sector/ sharing learning (output 3); Urban contexts (output 3.1). New Y4 milestone for output 3.2 (M&E methodology). Risks/Weightings updated to reflect changes. ii

3 C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING Output Title Poor and vulnerable communities are supported to develop measures to address the disaster (and other) risks and vulnerabilities they face in 8 countries/regions. Output number per LF 1 Output Score A+ Risk: Medium Impact weighting (%): 50% Risk revised since last AR? Y (was High) Impact weighting % revised since last AR? Y (was 35%) Indicator(s) Milestones Progress 1.1: # of local organisations/ vulnerable communities trained or supported to articulate their livelihoods risks, vulnerabilities and capacities (such as PVCAs) to be able to make plans to address them Baseline: 50 local organisations, 253 communities Target: 78 organisations, 350 communities Achieved: 81 organisations (7 new), 361 communities (59 new) 1.2: % of communities who report an improved ability to address their prioritised risks and vulnerabilities (results reporting disaggregated by gender) Target: 50% Achieved: 56% (f 60%; m 52%) Key Points Both milestones were exceeded. To date 13,133 (1,468 new) direct beneficiaries (6,205f; 6,928m) representing 81 local organisations and 361 communities have received training and support to articulate and address their risks and vulnerabilities. 349 community action plans have been implemented. Qualitative information collected through focus group discussions, surveys and interviews showed 56% of communities reported an increased ability to prioritise and address risk. Agreed actions included early warning systems, mitigation measures and community advocacy. Preparedness was shown to have improved over time, particularly in areas of fast onset disaster with communities better placed to respond to specific risks through higher levels of organisation (Philippines, Kenya). PVCAs were carried out in three new countries, including in the context of an active conflict (Iraq). The process was revisited in four countries where the concept of risk had deepened as communities and partners gained confidence and understanding in using a risk based approach. Emerging priorities in revisited action plans relate to challenging social and cultural issues such as alcoholism and gender inequality (Kenya), rights and security (OPT) and protection issues (DRC). Challenges include adapting the PVCA to address participatory limitations in transient communities where sections of the community are often away from the settlement travelling to other locations (Kenya) and in the context of gang influence and urban conflict (Honduras). Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) We have improved our M&E framework so that it has a stronger focus on beneficiary feedback. This strengthened our qualitative data collection, furthering understanding of change processes such as how communities prepare for and adapt to disaster. Confidence, organisation and community cohesion were shown to have a positive impact on community resilience with the PVCA process increasing inclusivity, for example through community engagement with marginalised pygmy groups in DRC or building Christian/Muslim trust in the Philippines. We also have a stronger understanding of resilience in different conflict settings: inter-community, intra-community and in communities situated within a wider conflict. In particular, we were able to evidence changes in communities in OPT, DRC and Kenya who felt better able to address security risks and cope with the stresses of conflict as a result of the collective, risk-based approach approach fostered by the PVCA process. Recommendations a) Document how preparedness develops over the course of an intervention b) Document how the PVCA process is adapted for challenging contexts, e.g. transient or urban/conflict settings. iii

4 Output Title Local organisations, local authorities and communities actively participate and influence in policy discussions at the local and national level related to the Hyogo Framework for Action, the follow-up HFA2 and resilience in the post-2015 MDGs in 8 countries/regions Output number per LF 2 Output Score A+ Risk: Medium Impact weighting (%): 40% Risk revised since last AR? N Impact weighting % revised since last AR? Y (was 25%) Indicator(s) Milestones Progress 2.1: Number of local organisations/ vulnerable communities that have received information, training or support to be able to develop advocacy plans for improved resilience to disasters and other risks Baseline: 84 organisations and 224 communities Target: 111 organisations and 315 communities Achieved: 113 organisations (5 new) and 332 communities (46 new) 2.2: % of communities who report improved engagement of authorities/advocacy targets (results reporting disaggregated by gender) Target: 30% Achieved: 39% (f 35%; m 44%) Key Points Again, both milestones were exceeded. A further 46 communities (26 in OPT and Iraq) received training and support to develop advocacy plans in year 4. 39% of communities in three countries reported improved engagement of authorities/advocacy targets, a reflection of increased confidence in their ability to advocate. The flexibility of PPA funding meant countries could adapt their advocacy focus during the extension in response to lessons learnt from the first three years of funding. Kenya, DRC and OPT focused on widening community advocacy to include a range of issues, such as lobbying for systems that enable women to report abuses (DRC) and leveraging financial and technical support to implement action plans (OPT). Philippines and Burkina Faso, meanwhile, concentrated on deepening advocacy work by supporting policy framework implementation and building networks. A PPA-supported Burkina Faso network substantially contributed to the formal adoption of a DRR law in June 2014, then built on this in November, attending a sub-regional meeting on DRR in Togo along with organisations from 13 countries. The resulting 'Lomé declaration on the reduction of disasters in Africa' was shared at the UN World Conference on DRR in March The network (14 organisations/3 media outlets) linked local and national level advocacy in Burkina Faso by creating systems for monitoring the DRR law in 55 communities. Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) We improved our understanding of the causal link between changes in policies, practice and disaster plans through stronger monitoring and use of technology. A new qualitative indicator explored the confidence communities had gained in using advocacy and documented both successes and challenges. In Kenya, a PPA-funded SMS Voices pilot project linked citizens to local government through text message reporting, resulting in 25 cases of influence. We commissioned an external impact report in the Philippines which highlighted the positive impact of strong civil society networks on policy implementation and development at a regional and national level, again directly supported by PPA funding. Learning across all countries highlighted the need to develop sustainable community advocacy strategies that account for power dynamics and engage with a wide range of actors, systematically linking to local and national plans and policies. Recommendations Provide support to build and widen community advocacy approaches to include power and stakeholder mapping in order to ensure strong links to the wider policy environment. iv

5 Output Title Christian Aid has put into practice, tested and evaluated a consolidated multi-hazard/context, disaster reduction policy, framework and guidelines, including accountability and demonstrating impact and shares learning across the sector in 8 countries/regions Output number per LF 3 Output Score A Risk: Medium Impact weighting (%): 10% Risk revised since last AR? N Impact weighting % revised since last AR? Y (was 5%) Indicator(s) Milestones Progress 3.1: # countries implementing (put into practice, tested and evaluated) an integrated resilience approach in different settings including conflict and urban contexts 3.2: Robust systems for monitoring/ evaluating the quality of our work are established and adhered to. Evidence of a number of quality outcomes and impact are produced 3.3: # CA country programmes that have strengthened relationships between CA/ partners/ communities/ other stakeholders in risk reduction & emergency response programming through implementing effective participation, strong information sharing and feedback mechanisms Key Points Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant) Recommendations Target: 7 countries Achieved: 7 countries Target: M&E Framework /methodology developed & tested in 5 countries Achieved: M&E Framework / methodology developed and tested in 5 countries Target: 8 countries Achieved: 7 countries (not Honduras) We met the milestones for indicators 3.1 and 3.2 and achieved 90% of the milestone for indicator 3.1. In Honduras, an appropriate approach to accountability is in development in response to the challenges of ensuring community participation in the PVCA process in the face of gang influence. We have implemented a resilience approach in new settings, starting work in Haiti (urban) and Iraq (active conflict), while existing countries concentrated on establishing new beneficiary feedback mechanisms. Our M&E framework was used to test and review five country ToCs with findings fed back into programme design and organisational learning for We supported this by piloting a participatory photo evaluation approach in Kenya, through which communities shared their perspectives on resilience. Our findings showed that a focus on accountability had increased participation, information sharing and gender balance in decision-making. We continued to communicate our learning internally, contributing to preparation for the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, as well as across the sector through forums such as the DFID Interagency Resilience Learning Group and ALNAP. The M&E framework provided qualitative evidence of the positive impact of the PVCA approach on participation and inclusion, particularly around improved gender outcomes. In DRC, Kenya and the Philippines, women felt more engaged in community planning and debate. They identified community resilience groups as allowing them a stronger say in community decisionmaking, for instance in implementing risk reduction measures and emergency preparedness (Philippines). Women also reported that these groups provide new platforms to raise and discuss risks which affect them directly, such as domestic abuse (DRC). In OPT, the PVCA process helped create an environment where gender dynamics could be challenged and changed. For example in some bedouin communities where men will not participate on committees with women, men are now considering whether in fact this might be possible. Use learning to inform update of our Thriving & Resilient Livelihoods Framework ( ) v

6 D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Date of last narrative financial report Date of last audited annual statement Key cost drivers and performance Over the past year, we have refined our understanding of cost drivers and their impact. Our principal cost drivers are divided into two categories: Strategic (those fundamental to our operating model and delivering our strategy) and Operational (those relating to factors which affect costs incurred within the parameters of our approach.) Strategic drivers include our mandate to work in complex environments with hard-to-reach communities and effective partnership management in complex settings. In the past year, we have established a more rigorous process within the International Directorate to test the rationale for each programme and we also invested in a piece of research to better understand our partnership added value in different contexts to ensure we are adding most value for resources invested. Operational drivers include staff travel to support capacity-building initiatives and risk management oversight; inflation in salary costs; and fluctuation and increases in prices of goods and services. We have taken action to manage these cost drivers. For example, we have worked with the Charity Pay Group to benchmark salaries and reviewed our policies against the sector to verify the numbers and salaries of recruited staff are commensurate with the need and market. We have also instigated a VfM in programming project to ensure the investments we are making at programme level are the most effective way to achieve outcomes whilst our carbon reduction project is ensuring the frequency of trips are justified and demonstrate value. VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case We made excellent progress towards the milestones in our enhanced VfM offer, meeting all our targets for March Progress includes improving access to our VfM training resources, and strengthening outcome level change analysis through the updated Outcome Assessment process which incorporates stronger beneficiary feedback mechanisms. 58% of PPA countries are demonstrating improved evidence of using VfM principles in their programmes as a result and we anticipate further progress in The years 1-3 External Review highlighted there is good evidence that Christian Aid is re-focusing on the added value that the PPA is intended to provide with the rollout of [recently developed] VfM best practice guides. Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money For Christian Aid, VfM is about maximising impact through strategic decision-making, ensuring that we are doing the right thing in the right way at the right time for the right people. Our approach is about managing our resources for maximum impact, focusing on the 4E framework. There is widespread good practice in effective management of resources in relation to procurement practices, selection of input activities, staffing levels and salaries. A review of procurement processes across the organisation resulted in the integration of VfM principles for use with suppliers resulting in c 250k savings in We also leveraged over 21.5m for programmes starting in from institutional sources alone. Through stronger M&E systems, our country programmes are able to ensure that benefits are distributed fairly and outputs have the desired outcomes. We remain confident that our PPA programme continues to provide excellent VfM. Quality of financial management For the extension phase, we are investing in a project to build staff skills around partner governance and financial management. This will improve how we assess partnership and select partners, help us to balance the partner portfolio and manage risk at country programme level. Through this evidence-based resource allocation, we are strengthening accountability and improving VfM. To date, we have improved our partner audit policy and over the next year we will develop flexible guidance and tools addressing different types of partners which will be rolled out to teams within Christian Aid. E: RISK Overall risk rating Low Medium High vi

7 Overview of programme risk Outstanding actions from risk assessment In line with our due diligence assessment, Christian Aid updated and shared a revised Conflict of Interest policy with DFID in February We are in the process of engaging a consultant to review our existing Child Protection Policy and aim to have a new policy with proceedures in place for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults by September We will share this with DFID once complete. F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Delivery against planned timeframe The programme continues to deliver against the planned timeframe. Performance of partnership (s) Partnership has always been the cornerstone of Christian Aid s work, helping to ensure the relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness and sustainability of our work. Strategic funding is crucial to strengthening our processes and practices for managing partnerships, promoting accountability and building capacity. We recently commissioned a PPA-funded study across three programmes (Kenya - CHS & General PPA; Middle East - CHS PPA; Colombia - non PPA). This explored our added value and whether resources spent on overhead costs generate results at country level that are significantly bigger, deeper, lasting and more inclusive than would have been without Christian Aid involvement. Preliminary findings show clearly that Christian Aid s contextualised approach to partnership adds value in at least four distinct areas: (1) empowering civil society - evidence from Kenya demonstrates that the long-term nature of PPA funding has contributed to enhanced project implementation in the short term and stronger partner organisations in the long run, increasing potential for sustainable results once funding ends. This aspect of our work was also highlighted as successful in the 2014 External Review. (2) brokering multi-stakeholder coalitions - bringing together those stakeholders that are most relevant to a certain issue means we are in a much better position to address the multiple root causes of poverty (enabling deeper change). Multi-stakeholder partnerships have been developed in seven countries (including fragile states and high disaster risk countries) to address risk. Examples include the DRR advocacy network in Burkina bringing together organisations and media outlets on awareness raising around DRR. In Iraq, a multi-stakeholder network is being established involving community volunteer groups, district-level organisations, and regional-level organisations including Kurdistan Save the Children. (3) funding strategically - flexibility provided through the PPA has enabled Christian Aid to leverage additional resources to scale up interventions and contribute to bigger change processes than would have otherwise been possible. This includes sourcing additional funding from international donors as well as local stakeholders. In OPT and Iraq alone, organisations funding project activities as a result of the prioritisation in community action plans include: World Vision, Save the Children, Aide Medicale Internationale, DanChurch Aid, FAO and the French Consulate in Palestine. Partners in OPT have also forged relationships with private sector actors. (4) enhancing advocacy supporting partners to bring their issues to the national and international political arena. Evidence of the impact of this work is demonstrated under output 2. Asset We have monitoring continued and control to strengthen and extend our partnership with DFID and other sector stakeholders Christian Aid through recognises active that engagement counter-fraud in X and Learning anti-corruption Partnership measures Groups, are new a consortiums, key reporting contracts parameter and for programmes the PPA. We including have worked the START hard in network, this reporting BRACED cycle and to further FP2020 address contracts. potential risks by strengthening our policy and practice for compliance with counter-terrorism measures and sanctions legislation. We are developing an Anti-Diversion Policy to ensure our funding channels guarantee funds reach and stay in the right hands. vii

8 G: CONDITIONALITY Update on partnership principles (if relevant) H: MONITORING & EVALUATION Evidence and evaluation Evidencing Impact is a high organisational priority for Christian Aid. The PPA reflected this through 1) commissioning an External Review; 2) refining and embedding M&E mechanisms within PPA projects; and 3) strengthening our wider performance systems. The years 1-3 External Review noted the PPA has brought about a major positive shift in the way CA focuses on results across the organisation. CA staff reported [ ] using learning and M&E results to continually improve and shape programming. Recommendations will feed into the Evidencing Impact priority work stream in Monitoring progress throughout the review period A key success this year was to test a new M&E approach in five countries. This built on learning and used mixed method approaches to assess country level ToC causal pathways and assess relevant outcome indicators. PPA funds supported the development of new monitoring tools including a pilot participatory photo project in Kenya used alongside more traditional survey methods, as well as testing Digital Data Gathering methods in Sierra Leone as part of Christian Aid s Ebola response. At organisational level, a gender traffic light scoring system was introduced into the Annual Review and Planning process to measure year-on-year progress in achieving the objectives within our Gender Justice Strategy with scores informing future support. We mapped M&E processes across countries, funds and themes to learn from good practice and address gaps. This led to a new M&E Action Learning Set (advisory and peer support for five programmes developing country level M&E frameworks) and M&E Community of Practice (49 global members with rotating topics and presenters). The Performance Management System, Christian Aid s online resources hub, was rolled out to programmes, with tools adapted for different contexts. I: DISABILITY Does your organisation consider disability in it s policies and programmes? In , Christian Aid s Strategic Change Objective Equality for All remained fundamental to our mission to end poverty and address unequal power relations. By addressing different dimensions of inequality through our programme, policy and advocacy work, we are tackling the hidden, visible and invisible power dynamics that reinforce inequality and exclusion among vulnerable groups. People with disabilities are one of these key vulnerable groups as they often lack positional and resource power as a result of stigma and discrimination amongst other causes. Organisationally, our consideration of disability is more advanced within our humanitarian work where, in line with the Sphere Core Standards and Protection principles, protection is emphasised as we seek to minimise or eliminate barriers and threats to safety and dignity when accessing Christian Aid and our partners services. Within our PPA work specifically, the use of PVCAs as the basis of our programming is an inclusive approach that directly prioritises the most vulnerable and marginalised community members and strengthens their ability to participate, but also to benefit from wider community understanding of the risks they face. In our CHS PPA, certain programmes have worked to ensure that PVCA action plans reflect the priorities of people with disabilities, for example in the Philippines where specific evacuation plans were included for people with disabilities. Moving forward, we have an organisational commitment to strengthen our work in this area, in line with our Equality for All SCO. Additionally, as part of the Help Age-led, DEPP-funded age and disability capacity-building programme, we recently recruited two new inclusion specialist positions to drive age, disability and gender inclusion considerations into the heart of Christian Aid s humanitarian work. viii