Building Bridges between Civil Society and Government through Capacity Building of the CSO Sector_Carol Makoane
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Building Bridges between Civil Society and Government through Capacity Building of the CSO Sector_Carol Makoane

on

  • 301 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
301
Views on SlideShare
301
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • 28/9/2011
  • 28/9/2011
  • 28/9/2011
  • 28/9/2011 Might mention “Also worked with M&E staff on quantitative analyses of data gathered on PEPFAR indicators”
  • 28/9/2011 Check whether should call it “AED’s COACH or “organizational capacity assessment”, as COACH stands for “Center on AIDS and Community Health”. Note: Last rec. doesn’t yet appear in FE, but would be a good one to add in, so think we can keep it here.
  • 28/9/2011 `
  • 28/9/2011 Again, maybe “Lessons and Recommendations”? Point re “5 years minimum” as separate bullet?
  • 28/9/2011 Again, maybe “Lessons and Recommendations”? Point re “5 years minimum” as separate bullet?
  • 28/9/2011
  • 28/9/2011 Do you want to add in numbers, like in the slide before, for consistency? May read better like it is, however, with less detail.
  • 28/9/2011 May need to point out that this data covers just 2010 and 2011, and why, verbally, or add “in 2011 than the year before”, and then verbally say why only 2 years of data.
  • 28/9/2011 Think part in yellow, first bullet, may be important part of the rationale? Note, I formatted the quote a little, with extra bulleting – may make it a little easier to follow. Probably the info and issues re TARGETS met and not met and why should come here, briefly.
  • 28/9/2011 Think part in yellow, first bullet, may be important part of the rationale? Note, I formatted the quote a little, with extra bulleting – may make it a little easier to follow. Probably the info and issues re TARGETS met and not met and why should come here, briefly.
  • 28/9/2011 Pie charts should follow this slide.
  • 28/9/2011 Changed sub-bullets and moved left. Change back if don’t like.

Building Bridges between Civil Society and Government through Capacity Building of the CSO Sector_Carol Makoane Building Bridges between Civil Society and Government through Capacity Building of the CSO Sector_Carol Makoane Presentation Transcript

  • Building Bridges Project 2008-2011Building Bridges Between CivilSociety and Government throughCapacity Building of the CSOSector: Experience and Resultsfrom BotswanaCarol B. Makoane, MPHTechnical Officer, HIV/AIDS Programs, PCIThis presentation is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).The contents are the responsibility of PCI and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
  • Presentation OutlineI. Building Bridges OverviewII. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly• Highlights of HIV/AIDS ServicesAchievements, Lessons Learned &Recommendations• Highlights of Organizational DevelopmentAchievements, Lessons Learned &RecommendationsI. Conclusions
  • Building Bridges Overview• In October 2008 PCI was funded by USAID toimplement the 3-year Building Bridges Project.• Aim: to strengthen the capacity of civil societyorganizations (CSOs) in Botswana to deliverintegrated HIV/AIDS care & support services• Approach: provided sub grant funding and technicalassistance to the CSO partners
  • Why Civil Society Organizations?• Government can’t do it alone – civil society hasunique strengths that are needed to achieve nationalHIV/AIDS goals.• CSOs have the passion and commitment to bringservices to families in some of the poorest andhardest-to-reach places, often at low cost.• They serve as a vital link between families in need,and government services, reaching into homes tohelp people with their daily struggles, and referringthem back to government when needed.• CSOs have a depth of relationship with theircommunities that they can use to motivate people touse services and change behaviors.
  • Building Bridges Partnerships• Over the project life, PCI assisted 13CSOs and two umbrella bodies forvarying lengths of time.• We also worked closely with MLG,MOH and district government inproject design, implementation andmonitoring.Building Bridges CSO Partners :• Bakgatla Bolokang Matshelo (BBM) - Mochudi• Botswana Association for PsychosocialRehabilitation (BAPR) - Lobatse• BOCAIP Lesedi - Kanye• BOCAIP Tumelong - Kumakwane• Holy Cross Hospice - Gaborone• House of Hope Trust - Palapye• Humana Child Aid - Selebi-Phikwe• Mothers Union Orphan Care Centre - Mahalapye• Silence Kills Support Group - Selebi-Phikwe• Tsholofelo Trust - Letlhakeng• Positive Innovations for the Next Generation(PING)• Botswana Network for People Living withHIV/AIDS (BONEPWA+)• Botswana Network of AIDS ServiceOrganizations (BONASO)
  • Building Bridges StrategiesThe Building Bridges project used 4 main strategies toimprove the effectiveness, reach and sustainability ofCSO Partners’ HIV/AIDS services:1. Comprehensive Family Care2. Community Mobilization3. Food/Nutrition & Livelihoods4. Organizational Development
  • Building Bridges ApproachesCOMPREHENSIVE FAMILY CARE• CSO staff and volunteers were trained to visit homes,administer a family assessment tool and develop anintervention plan for the entire family.– provided ongoing services and referrals– family monitoringCOMMUNITY MOBILIZATION• PCI trained and mentored 79 Journey of Life Facilitatorsand 14 Trainers in ten districts.– These included government health workers and socialworkers, CSO partner staff, and staff from other CSOsin project districts.– formed themselves into “District JoL Teams” tocoordinate and follow up on district activities
  • Building Bridges ApproachesFOOD/NUTRITION & LIVELIHOODS• PCI conducted a review of food/nutrition & livelihoodsstrategies, gaps and opportunities in Botswana• 66 CSO staff and volunteers were trained and mentored invegetable production and honey production, throughpartnership with Ministry of Agriculture.– Two-tiered approach - NGO centre-based gardens orapiaries serve as demonstration sites, to teachcommunity members how to establish their ownbackyard gardens or beekeeping projects.– Food for Life model– Honey for Life model• 13 CSO staff were trained in entrepreneurship skills
  • Organizational Development: Description• At the start of the program, and at stagesthroughout the project, partners’ service delivery andorganizational capacity were assessed.• Capacity building plans were developed with thepartners, with some activities to be implemented byPCI and others by the partners themselves.• The capacity building approach combined training,technical assistance, mentoring, provision ofequipment/software, development of a variety oftools, as well as sub grant funding.• PCI linked partners to local expertise fromgovernment, other civil society organizations, andprivate sector
  • Organizational Development: Description• Technical capacity building was conducted alongsideorganizational capacity building to ensure thatprogress was made on both simultaneously, as theyare interdependent.• Priority was first given to HIV/AIDS TechnicalCapacity, Financial Management and Monitoring,Evaluation and Reporting.– This was to ensure that partners could meet minimalrequirements to deliver services, while effectivelymanaging their sub grant funds and fulfilling datareporting requirements.• While support for these areas continued, capacitybuilding was then provided in areas of Governanceand Leadership, Human Resource Management andResource Mobilization.
  • Measuring Local Capacity StrengtheningThe Bad? The Ugly?
  • Building Bridges Final Evaluation• Aim of the Final Evaluation: to identifyachievements & lessons learned that can help showways forward for future programs• External consultant Dr. Ann Brownlee worked as ateam with PCI staff.• Over a 5-week period starting in April 2011, Dr.Brownlee & the evaluation team conducted keyinformant interviews and focus group discussionswith CSO partners and beneficiaries in project sites,as well as with district and national government.• The team also conducted further analyses of datagathered on PEPFAR indicators over the project life.
  • Final Evaluation Key Challenge• There was limited availability of quantitative data onthe CSO partners’ capacity and service quality at thestart of the project. This made it difficult to quantifylife-of-project changes.– The capacity assessment methodology used at the startof the project featured self-assessment, and aimed tobuild ownership of capacity gaps, and consensus on waysforward.• While powerful as an organizational change tool, it isnot as effective for quantifying change over time.– This is a weakness of many organizational capacityassessment tools: although they produce numericalscores, the reliance on self-assessment without sufficientobjective verification of capacity, makes a tool less usefulfor measuring change over time.
  • Rapid Organizational Capacity Assessment (ROCA)• Tool developed by PCI to provide a rapid participatorytechnical and organizational capacity assessment for CivilSociety Organizations (CSOs)– Used 10 selected domains rated on a scale of 1 to 4– Used focus group discussions with key stakeholders ofpartner organizations– Scoring completed by partner stakeholders facilitatedby a consultant; scoring based on consensus– Identification of capacity needs in the process– Did not give a clear picture of the partner’s level ofcapacity due to self-reporting; and partners overstatedhow well they were doing
  • How was this challenge addressed?• The Final Evaluation team developed a rapidassessment tool featuring externally verifiablemeasures of change*• Using this tool, CSO partners were assessed onbaseline capacity retrospectively, and on presentcapacity.• Data from the assessment was supplemented byreview of existing project data and through othertypes of information gathering conducted for theFinal Evaluation.*adapted in part from the organizational capacity assessment tool developed by AEDthrough the USAID-funded Capable Partners project
  • The GoodMeasuring Local Capacity Strengthening
  • IV. Highlights of OrganizationalDevelopment Achievements,Lessons Learned &Recommendations
  • Organizational Development: SuccessesThe graph above presents the overall organizational capacity scores by partner, for both2008 (in retrospect) and for June 2011, the final month for partner support under BuildingBridges. Each of the Building Bridges CSO partners achieved substantial gains in overallorganizational capacity over the project period.
  • The graph above presents the organizational capacity scores by domain for all thepartners combined, for both 2008 (in retrospect) and for June 2011, the final month forpartner support under Building Bridges.Gov: GovernanceP.Mgt: Program ManagementHR: Human ResourceTC: Technical CapacityFM: Financial ManagementNC: Networking /CollaborationPMER: Project M&E/ReportingRM: Resource Mobilization
  • Building Bridges capacity building resulted in substantial improvement in all domains for theCSO partners, with the greatest changes in HIV/AIDS Technical Capacity, Monitoring,Evaluation & Reporting, and Project Management.+42+49+32Organizational Development: Successes
  • Organizational Development:Lessons Learned & Recommendations• Organizational capacity assessment should come atthe very beginning of future projects and should:– use “new generation” capacity assessment tools thatincorporate objective verification, thus enablingquantitative comparisons over time– incorporate quantifiable measures of program servicequality• Measurement frameworks for future projects with astrong OD component should incorporate impactindicators that link improved organizational capacity,service quality and beneficiary outcomes
  • Organizational Development:Lessons Learned & Recommendations• “Since the OD process must be intensive to achievefull impact, future programs with a strong OD focusshould include one or two full-time staff members,sufficient cross-training of technical staff in OD and,if feasible, a long-term relationship with a highlyskilled OD consultant firm, for full impact.”(FE Report)• “Future programs should build in “achievement ofsustainability” as a clear program objective, requirecost-sharing, and provide capacity building onresource mobilization and governance early on.”(FE Report)
  • Organizational Development:Lessons Learned & Recommendations• Increasing financial sustainability of local NGO partnersis a slow and costly process• Challenges to strengthening NGO financial sustainabilityunique to Botswana include:– the presence of few donors given Botswana’s “middleincome” status,– absence of Global Fund, and– lack of tax incentives for private companies to makecharitable donations.
  • Organizational Development:Lessons Learned & Recommendations• “Three years is short for this type of process…Futurecapacity building projects should be funded for fiveyears, at minimum.” (FE Report)• “Future programs should work closely with the GOB,key donors, and other HIV/AIDS stakeholders todevelop mechanisms for closer coordination to helpinsure rational distribution of available resources andcontinue to explore possibilities for majorpartnerships with the private sector.” (FE Report)• Governance has proven to be a key driver oforganizational effectiveness and sustainability, yet ithas also proven one of the most difficult areas tochange. Training and mentoring have not been aseffective as in other capacity areas.
  • III. Highlights of HIV/AIDS ServiceAchievements, Lessons Learned &Recommendations
  • Data on PEPFAR indicators gathered through the project’s M&E systemshowed that the number of HIV infected or affected adults and childrenwho were provided with at least one care service by the 11 CSO partnersalmost doubled, increasing from 5,759 to 10,273.The majority of these clients were “registered” with a CSO and receivedcomprehensive, ongoing care and support services over the project life.
  • Data on this PEPFAR indicator showed that the number of HIV positiveclients provided with a minimum of one clinical service increased almost3-fold, from 1,285 to 3,815 comparing 2009 with the first 3 quarters of2011.The majority of these clients were “enrolled” with a CSO and receivedcomprehensive, ongoing services over the life of project.
  • From 2010-2011, 36% morevulnerable children, and 29% moreadults received psychosocial support.From 2010-2011, 131% morevulnerable children and 41% moreadults received protection and legalaid services
  • How were HIV/AIDS service delivery increases achieved?• “Access by the CSOs to sub grant funds is a keyfactor, but does not in itself explain these dramaticincreases, as funding remained approximately thesame each year.” (FE Report)• “This increase can most likely be attributed toenhanced ability to deliver services due to:– strengthened organizational and technicalcapabilities;– greater integration of services due to theComprehensive Family Care approach, resulting,most likely, in greater efficiency.” (FE Report)
  • How were HIV/AIDS service delivery increases achieved?• Community Mobilization activities also helpedidentify new potential clients, who were thenprovided with services by the CSOs andgovernment.• Improved record keeping may have also allowedthe CSOs to report additional services they mayhave been delivering before, but neglected toreport.
  • How were Technical Capacity gains achieved?• Training based on best practices, technical assistance,ongoing mentoring, access to tools/materials, peerlearning opportunities, continual encouragement• Introduction of new service delivery strategies:Comprehensive Family Care; CommunityMobilization; Food/Nutrition & Livelihoods• Training and mentoring in key technical skills areasfor care & support (psychosocial support, palliativecare, ART adherence, etc.)• Improved project design, planning & managementskills• More stable organizational context due to capacitybuilding and stable funding over the life of project.
  • How were Resource Mobilization gains achieved ?All of the organizational capacity domains have a direct impact onorganizational sustainability. However the ability to raise funds is one of themost powerful indicators of an organization’s strength, and of its potentialsustainability.Data for FY09 and FY10 show that the CSO partners are moving in the rightdirection of diversifying their sources of support, from an average of 16% of theirfunding coming from non-PEFPAR sources for FY09 to more than double, at 39% inFY10 (data for FY11 is not yet available).
  • How were Resource Mobilization gains achieved ?• Building Bridges served as an intermediary linkingCSOs and various funding sources and providedtechnical assistance with proposals.• In early 2010, PCI developed the skills series “Care likean NGO, Act like a Business”. Delivered in three 4-dayworkshops, the series teaches partners: how to approach fundraising from a position ofstrength (“we are not beggars”) how to create a credible identity and package theirwork for diverse audiences how to work with media how to form win-win partnerships with private sector how to obtain funds from a variety of governmentgrant programs how to use the internet for fundraising
  • Conclusions• “Organizational development that was trulysustainable proved more daunting than originallyimagined, with good governance and mobilization ofsufficient “non-PEPFAR” resources to maintain NGOservices harder to achieve than initially predicted.”(FE Report)• The program faced a number of challenges, such asa more difficult and extended process than originallyenvisioned necessary to achieve sustainable change,with some inputs coming later than desired, andtargets, sometimes overly ambitious…were notalways met.” (FE Report)
  • Conclusions• “PCI’s Building Bridges program has been aninnovative and successful project that was able tostrengthen both the programmatic andorganizational capacity of partner CSOs to deliverintegrated HIV/AIDS services…” (FE Report)• The development and roll-out of innovativestrategies, including Comprehensive Family Care,Community Mobilization...and the Food/Nutrition &Livelihood strategy, coupled with an intensiveapproach to organizational development, led to muchmore cost efficient and effective services in the areasof care and support for the families served…”(FE Report)
  • Conclusions• “PCI’s very personal and intense approach tostrengthening its partner CSOs was...key, with bothprovision of a wide range of training opportunities…and most important, intensive mentoring “on theground”, with quarterly visits to all CSOs and arespectful but honest approach to problem-solving,being essential components.” (FE Report)
  • With Gratitude• USAID/PEPFAR• Government of Botswana– NACA– Ministry of Local Government– Ministry of Health– Ministry of Agriculture– District Government• CSO Partners• Collaborating Organizations• PCI Staff• Dr. Ann Brownlee