PQMF on partnership benchmarks of good practice Report

Written by:

Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida, Good forest governance project manager

Phommachanh Phothichanh, Information management specialist

CARE International in Lao PDR

Vientiane, 26 November 2014

MISSION REPORT

Program Quality Mini Forum on Partnership Benchmarks of good Practice Phnom Penh, the Kingdom of Cambodia

(Duration, 18th – 20th of November 2014)

©2014, All Rights Reserved

Program Quality Mini Forum on Partnership Benchmarks of good Practice Phnom Penh, the Kingdom of Cambodia

(Mission Report, 18th – 20th of November 2014)

Purpose: participate, share, and discuss cases on current partnership practice among country offices. On Tuesday, 18th-20th of November 2014, 8:30-17:00 pm at meeting room of Frangipani living arts hotel, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Participants (2): Phommachanh Phothichanh (PQ team), and Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida (GOFOGO). Organized by CARE Australia PQL Written by Phommachanh and Phetsoulaphonh

Background of the forum:

The PQ Mini Forum invited 11 participants which included a mix of program and project management

staff from six country offices namely Cambodia (3), Laos (2), Myanmar (2), Vietnam (2), Timor-Leste (1),

and Papua New Guinea (1) in order to exchange experience, share and keep learning from case studies

in different countries which framed around the three benchmarks of good practice outlined in CARE

Australia’s Partnership Policy such as (a) ensure clarity about the purpose of the relationship, (b) foster

effective work from all partners involved in the relationship, and (c) monitor and manage the quality of

the relationship. Recently, partnership becomes crucial and hot topic in NEO-economic transition era

that partnership influences toward the sustainability, lasting change, capacity of partner and wider

impact to beneficiaries, not just for CARE. In some countries have partnership with CSOs is very political

in Myanmar and Laos but some is relax. Therefore, partnership model replication of the successful one

country maybe terrible to copy to other countries. It comes up with rule, case, research, and evidence

come from experience is our benchmarks. Of course, each country office has already country

partnership strategy in long term to be achieve, now it is time to reflex, the big aim of this forum is to

share real experience, learning, identify idea to improve our work in the future, and share key learning

from this forum with our country office’ staff.

Framework of the forum:

The representatives of country offices from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, and

Papua New Guinea shared understanding of current partnership practice applying (some of) CARE

Australia’s benchmarks of Partnership Good Practice, identification of ways of strengthening practice in

the future, documented summaries of case studies presented and lessons learned, and agreed planned

for sharing results with a broader audience.

DAY ONE: Tuesday, 18th November 2014

Introduction of safety and security briefing: By Mr. Samnang Heang, the Cambodia emergency contact person in chart

1. Crime situation

- Opportunistic crime is common in Cambodia, keep passport and valuables in a safe place as

we can

- The street crimes are purse and beg snatching, and pick-pocketing

- The security situation remains volatile due to lawlessness and sometimes political tensions,

robberies and violent assaults do happen

- There are high levels of firearm ownership in Cambodia and they’re sometimes used to

resolve disputes

- Do not carry or display valuable items

- Do not withdraw large amounts of cash after dark

- Be caution and alert to behaviors and actions around you

- If you’re controlled, try to remain calm, do not panic, do not be aggressive, do not resist-do

comply with demand. More often than not criminals will be interested in your cash and

possessions, particularly mobile phones, rather than your passport

2. Travel

- Tuk Tuk (three-wheel vehicles): A common method of transportation around Phnom Penh

and Some cities or downtowns

- CAR Taxi: CAR Taxi can be booked through Hotel Staff for a reliable one or CARE staff

- Motorcycle taxis: Travel by motorbike is dangerous due to hazardous road conditions as well

as being targeted for bag‐snatching by thieves.

- Boat: You are required to wear a life vest/flotation device. You should have some small

notes for paying the travel cost and should negotiate before service.

- Do not travel alone at night after 9 pm, flexible taxi arrangement with hotel staff required

3. Accommodation

- Ensure the Hotel Room is locked and safety chains are used. Do not open the door to any

uninvited visitor.

- Please ensure you inform CARE’s Safety and Security Officer if any aspect of your

accommodation causes concern.

- Break‐ins – Don't do anything that would put you at risk (don't wander around in the dark to

investigate, don't try and surprise the burglar). Always avoid a physical confrontation and do

not use weapons. There is high level of firearm ownership in Cambodia so assume burglars

are armed and comply with demands for property.

4. Health

- Only drink bottled water with Seal intact. Avoid ice in drinks in local restaurants and food on

the street which doesn’t look hygienic. (No access to running water or facilities maybe

unhygienic)

- It is very hot and humid in Cambodia, so drink plenty of water to prevent dehydration. Fresh

coconut juice is an excellent (and tasty!) way to rehydrate, costing around 3000 Riels (0.75

Cents)

- Evacuation can be to Bangkok or Singapore in emergency/serious medical conditions

- Mosquito‐borne diseases dengue fever and malaria are common. Make sure exposed areas

of skin are covered with a tropical strength insect repellant with DEET at all times (dengue

mosquitoes bite during the day, malaria mosquitoes at night).

- Water-borne, food-borne, parasitic and other infectious diseases (including cholera,

hepatitis, tuberculosis, typhoid and rabies) are common with more serious outbreaks

occurring from time to time.

5. Landmines

- A briefing will be provided by CARE staff before entering a land mine affected area;

however, basic rules apply, do not wander off the beaten track or pick up any objects.

Overview of CARE Australia partnership policy, the partnership good practice benchmarks: By Ms. Cathy Emery and Ms. Jane Cousins, the key facilitators

1. Benchmark no#1: Ensure clarity about the purpose of relationship

- Clear partnership objective (e.g. Share good practice with decision makers, improve

accountability of government staff, and mandate……..

- Clear understanding of partnership objective for project staff and leaders

- Roles and responsibilities fit to objective, activities and understanding

- Partnership objective and project objective is not always the same, objective can/should

change over time

- Know objective at an early stage

- Link to monitoring quality of the results

- Link to the quality of relationship with three benchmarks

- Identify strengths (CARE and partners) respond to the objective

2. Benchmark no#2: Foster effective work from all partners involved in the relationship

- Know the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities

- There is capacity building

- Capacity assessment of partners (strength based approach has different option:

participatory self assessment and donor self assessment)

- Internal capacity assessment for the partnership objective

- Capacity building plan

- Documentation on process and lessons

- Better impacts

- Resource mobilization (put money and skill together, the decision making should be flexible

funding)

- Financial, technical feasibility of what we promote with partners

3. Benchmark no#3: Monitor and manage the quality of the relationship

Can be measured by M&E on

- the quality of relationship

- impacts

- partnership change/results (capacities and voices)

Most importance is how well we do work together, different ideas for different partners,

documentation, mapping of relationship (accountabilities of qualities of relationship with CARE),

institutional relationship (person comes first), and both understanding the reality.

Case Study based on Capacity Building of Community Based Organisation (Barola Haus Mama) in Papua New Guinea By Ms. Gellie Akui, the Maternal and Infant Health (MIH) Project Coordinator

This case fits to benchmark no#2: Foster effective work from all partners involved in the relationship

- CARE PNGs aim is to strongly going for addressing poverty and social injustice in rural remote

communities in PNG through program work and working with partners

- Partnership objective is not defined but the partnership is based on CARE’s aim to addressing

poverty and social injustice in rural remote communities in Papua New Guinea through Program

Work and Working with partners

- Partner is a CBO of Barola Haus Mama

- Knew the strengths and weaknesses of BHM and CARE PNG

- Clear role between BHM and CARE PNG

Roles BHM

Delivering Community Engagement Training to addressing gender roles and cultural norms that affect sexual reproductive & maternal health in communities health

Collect field data

Community Entry (socialisation) Roles CARE PNG Building capacity of BHM

Financial management Gender training Facilitation skills training Monitoring Coaching – on the job

Community Engagement training Reflection

Wantoks system currently seen as an issue and needed to be addressed

Some times Better narrative reporting than CARE field staff

Positive attitude to learning

CARE learned from piloting process of engaging BHM – time invested well

Mini research during the tea/coffee break:

What is challenging to work in partnership with BHM

Local NGO and CBO with limited organisational capacity and many are not at reach because they only work in their respective provinces on small scale

Church agencies are many and they manage more than a half of the all health and education facilities, churches also have their own agenda that sometimes make it difficult to work with communities that are from different denomination, it could lead to division and conflicts in the communities

Wantok system is widely practiced such that anybody elected to the parliament has basically promise the relative of the benefits that they will receive as being the wantok to the politician, this system practice is crippling into existing organisation system in the PNG too. For instance, if I am the manager of the organisation, then I am likely to recruit someone who is my wantok who does not have any qualification and experience to perform on the given role. When this happen, services are not delivered at the expected standards

What CARE PNG learned from this partnership benchmark of real practice

There are many lessons learnt in identification, engagement, planning, and management of BHM. Of those many, there are two key learning which are:

The consultative and transparent approach to recruiting BHM as the CARE PNG partner, and

The strengthened partnership between CARE PNG and BHM that has now brought forward many benefits to both BHM and CARE PNG in the work to address gender issues and cultural norms that effect sexual reproductive and maternal health in the communities.

What CARE PNG can do differently in future (Follow up/Next step)

To have in place clear partnership objective

Detailed Building Plan based on the Needs Assessment

Able to use the flexible grants where possible for capability building of BHM

Case Study on Partnership for Good Forest Governance (GOFOGO) in Lao PDR By Mr. Phetsoulaphonh N. Choulatida, Project Manager


Recently experience:

- This case has 5 different partners (two CSOs, one network, and two INGOs)

- Clear role and responsibility of each

- Project objective is to contribute to good forest governance in Lao PDR that respects the rights of

ethnic groups and ensures the participation of relevant stakeholders

- Partnership objective is to improve accountability and capacity of CSOs, and CBOs that contribute to

good forest governance

- Partnership assessment done with CSOs

- Project just starts up

What is challenging

- Two strong partners: They thought they are very strong so that very difficult to accept the capacity building activities (Participatory capacity assessment is must to further engage in partnership)

- Nascent CSOs: Not yet registered with central government, no legal status yet => still accepted by local authority => CARE gave them the opportunities to demonstrate their capacity by agreeing involvement in project (still sign MOU). If their they can show their strong capacity (through involving in project) they could be accepted by central Gov

- Some partners have many donors, not full commitment with CARE - Confusion of partnership and project objective (both sides) What GOFOGO learned from this case

- Can only involve in partnership after having participatory assessment: Do change order of CARE

normal partnership process (Partnership => capacity assessment changed to capacity assessment =>

partnership)

- Make use of different strengths: research, forest management, legal education, networking,

coordination and network at national level

What GOFOGO can do differently in future

- Best use of other countries partnership strategy to assess partner capacity (doing before signing

MOU)

- Make clear of partnership objective with each partner when involving many different partners

- Partnership and project objective are not always the same

- Flexible to give partner opportunities to show their capacity

Group discussion toward two cases of CARE PNG and CARE Lao PDR: Following four questions toward the benchmark no#2: - How did strengths of the partners influence the partnership roles and activities these cases studies? - What are the benefits of linking partnership roles and partnership activities to strengths of partners? - What are the challenges of doing this? How could these be reduced? What support is needed? - What new thinking/learning emerges from this discussion? Results of group discussion: To question no.1: - Local partner: evidence based demonstration, working at grassroots level, strong relationship

- CARE: coordination/capacity building, Net working, representative, mandate, technical resource

- Voice out

- Strong expertise

- Know very well local context

- Mutual understanding to active the overall project goal

- Building evidence influent decision

To question no.2: - Mutual learning

- Gaps identified for improvements

- Confidence of partners

- Better resource mobilization

- Potential replication to ensure cost effectiveness

- Inspiring ownership

- Better recognized

- Identify the weakness to strategy to improve the weakness

- Opportunities for future grant

- Policy change

- Complement the strength of each partner

- Wider impact

To question no.3: - Context identify good partner

- Limited capacity to bring their voice to national level

- Resisting to accept weaknesses

- Less number of qualified CSOs

- Not acceptable by government (Laos) might not allow CSO advocacy

- CSOs changeable backed on donors (HealthCC) preferences

- Staff turnover could be effected lose strengths

- Donor requirements don’t enable strengths of partner

- Short term funding

- Partner working with too many other partners

Addressing

- Engagement planning and management need to done very carefully

- Building capacity of the partner – continue (financial/resource)

- External/expert for internal specific skill

- CSOs show evidence to convince the government

- Change in government policy and structure

- Priorities / decisions linked in long term program priorities

- Evidence influence donors, governments

To question no.4:

- Strengths of partner really influence for wider change/impact

- Partner can benefit and support each other

- Capacity assessment for partner, it depends on which tool we’re familiar with

- To get effective work, need to know the objective

Case Study on Building up the Advocacy Capacity of CSO/Partner in Myanmar By Mr. Ko Ko Zaw, Program Manager, Socially Marginalised People Program


- Partnership objective is to build the advocacy capacity of a CBO

- Partner is a Sex Workers in Myanmar (SWiM)

- Previous objective of Swim was focusing on HIV/AIDs education and prevention including sex worker

issue then later on they move to work on demanding right and legal protection of sex workers.

- Current Objective of SWiM:

SWiM has clear objective to collect information as evident to inform the CHANGE the related law in and to protect the rights of Sex workers in Myanmar

- CARE Myanmar’s Role:

CARE is capacity building, coordination and assisting in collecting evidences for Swim and support in advocacy process.

- The strengths of the SWiM:

a. SWiM had strong relationship with parliamentarian

b. Change in country situation would give opportunity for swim to advocate policy CHANGE or making reform existing policy.

c. Swim has two members that has strong capacity and can represent their member’s voice at Ministries level

d. Swim has strong relationship with some Government officials at higher level.

e. Some of parliamentarian recognized that women’s right is really important as well as INGOs UN agency.


What is challenging to work in partnership with SWiM

Registration is currently pending

Existing laws (Association law and FSW criminalization law) prohibit in applying formal registration

Need improvement in organizational development skills and technical skills (advocacy and policy engagement)

Limited skilled persons

What CARE Myanmar learned from this partnership benchmark of real practice

Some parliamentarians interest in changing FSW related policy

National Strategic Plan for Advancement of Women and Anti Violence Against Women law is

drafting

2015 election, use this opportunity to change policy

Show good practice to governement

SWiM engagement at Regional and Global FSW network and events (Eg. ICCAP, AIDS

conference, ASEAN forum)

What CARE Myanmar can do differently in future (Follow up/Next step)

Increased number of representatives at different level of policy dialogue

Meaningful representation of SWiM at National Level Dialogue

SWiM will be acknowledged by the Government regardless of official status

Group discussion toward the case of CARE Myanmar: Following four questions: - How did the partner objectives influence the partnership strategies in this case study?

- What are the strengths of strategies used for this partnership objective? Why?

- What the other partnership strategies might also be useful with this objective?

- What are the challenges? How could these be reduced? What support is needed?

- What are key points from this case study?

Results of group discussion: To question no.1: - Coordination for improve strengthen network of SWIM (Sex Worker…) - Advocacy at the higher level i.e. parliamentary, UN agency… - Collecting evidence - Support SWIM to collect evidence information - Representative of SWIM join National Dialogue

To question no.2: - Activities fit the objective

- Specific focus on capacity building of partner (SWIM)

- Creating opportunities space for discussion/presentation

- Membership being a part of SWIM strategy

To question no.3: - Focus on system and tool rather than individual

- To target the capacity building to more members by rotational leadership (e.g. annually)

- Old leader need to train new potential members for leader

- Build the capacity of organization, representative of network at National level

- Sensitizing, aware on the right of sex worker (entertainment, industry, club, …)

To question no.4:

- Donors’ requirement

- Flexible/expectation, best use of our flexible funding

- CARE’s capacity of advocacy capacity building, partnership with NGO with capacity

- This is new idea to effort, specific focus on what is advocacy, priorities, and impact groups

- Advocacy capacity is different from other

- Political issue/change a lot by sensitization monitoring

- Sexual work is not legalized by policy

To question no.5: - Partnership’s objective are different from project/programs

- Clear partnership objective

- Apply the partnership strategy + LTP partnership priorities

- To get effective work need to know the objective

DAY TWO: Wednesday 19th November 2014

Case Study on Building up the Advocacy Capacity of Ministry of Health through Mutual Accountability Tool in Timor-Leste By Ms. Celina Exposto, National Project Manager

This case fits to benchmark no#1: Ensure clarity about the purpose of the relationship - Partnership objective is for replication of an evidence based model - Outlines of role and responsibilities from Ministry of Health (MOH)

build a relationship

open discussion

on clarity of CITL’s SMP goal and strategy that can contribute to decreasing Maternal Mortality

cases in Timor-Leste

establish the transition for CITL from a supply provider role to a more facilitator role

promote replication of MAT amongst government partners

District Health Services (DHS) role is to support CARE activities, participate in the MAT, and

other DHS responsibilities include implementing the action plan of the MAT on the supply side-

and CARE will support them to implement the action plan.

MoH role is to enable CARE’s activities, to support the DHS. MoH is also responsible for holding

the DHS accountable for implementing the MAT action

- Outlines of role and responsibilities from CARE Timor-Leste

To bring all stakeholders together, facilitate MAT process, facilitate follow up & joint monitoring,

put together the evidence base and a report at the end of the pilot. And CARE is responsible for

holding the communities accountable for the action plans they develop.


What is challenging to work in partnership with MOH

Policy of CARE and MOH is differently to convince high commitment (e.g. DSA, ....)

Time consuming to be realized by MOH on role shifting of CARE

Replication of model is not sustainable when project phase out What CARE Timor-Leste learned from this partnership benchmark of real practice

Different from CARE’s previous relationship with the Ministry of Health

Reflected that the partnership between MOH and SMP has shifted over the years

In the beginning MoH saw CARE as a service provider and to a large extent still does, but CARE’s

work and role is shifting to focus more on facilitating action by others –communities on the one

hand and government service providers on the other by bringing its technical expertise in MAT.

What CARE Timor-Leste can do differently in future (Follow up/Next step)

During the review and follow up process SMP will be looking to see if MAT has been effective

and if not apply the right kind of advocacy to ensure that the action plans are indeed fulfilled.

SMP realize that it is still early to fully understand the challenges (e.g. if changing in policy,

revise structure) that is out of CARE’s control. However, we will reflect on our learning and

change accordingly.

Case Study on Partnership with Ministry of Labour Invalid Social Affairs (MOLISA) to replicate an evidence based model of Empowerment for Female Sex Workers (FSW) in Vietnam By Mr. Nguyen Dang Nhat, Advocacy and Inclusion Specialist

This case fits to benchmark no#1: Ensure clarity about the purpose of the relationship - Partnership Objective is to replicate an Evidence Based Model of Empowerment for Female Sex

Worker - Strategic Partners: National Department of Social Vice Prevention (DSVP) of Ministry of Labour

Invalid Social Affairs (MOLISA) - Clarity the role and the responsibilities: Basing on the mapping of partners, partnership strategy, etc - Find the common interest between CARE Vietnam and MOLISA to start the cooperation - Find the leverage points and drivers of change: Strategic partnership with DSVP/MOLISA NQ

leverages DVSP’s interest in working with CARE to effectively implement the government policy directions around sex work. This will ensure their ownership and technical capacity to replicate an empowerment model for sex workers

- Partner selection: the CARE Vietnam’s strategic directions focus in partnership; including investment in strategic partnerships to promote impacts at scale.


What is challenging to work in partnership with MOLISA - Limited flexible funding for replication follow up - Tool/approach of NGOs not always easily to be adapted by government staffs - Having limited understanding and commitment of government staffs - Government staffs turn over What CARE Vietnam learned from this partnership benchmark of real practice - They have got the right partners at the beginning

- Participatory developed, piloted and replicated model - Separate roles between CARE Vietnam and MOLISA - CARE Vietnam and MOLISA already have partnership approach on FSW even different but few

spaces for cooperation is present - Having strategic two partners and six implementing partners - Project objective and partnership objective are the same - Partners and CARE Vietnam together analyze limitation of the model, having mutual learning - The clarity of purpose of the partnership, and roles and responsibilities should be carried out at an

early stage. - For new partnerships, a planned partnership Establishment Phase is recommended. What CARE Vietnam can do differently in future (Follow up/Next step) Work together with MOLISA to - Collect evidences - Joint review the current model - Design model including Situational Analysis to identify the strategic focus. - Introduce in new locations - Implement and adjust the model - Scaling up impacts: Through the development of an evidence-based model with ownership broader

than CARE

Group discussion toward the case of CARE Timor-Leste and CARE Vietnam: Following four questions: - How did the partner objectives influence the partnership strategies in these cases study?

- What are the strengths of strategies used for these partnership objective? Why?

- What the other partnership strategies might also be useful with this objective?

- What are the challenges? How could these be reduced? What support is needed?

- What are key points from these cases study?

Results of group discussion: To question no.1: - CARE: considered service provider facilitating role - CARE’s role to provide capacity building and technical support - Building more evidence about replicate - M&E - CARE’s role orientation/sensitization to partners - CARE Vietnam’s roles in:

o Facilitation o Technical expertise o Coordination o Documentation

- Partner: to lead by partner to implement and replicate the tool - MOLISA’s role:

o service delivery o Advocacy o Coordination o Replicate

- MOH & CARE have more accountable (mandate) - Down word accountability MOH district level

To question no.2: - Outline clarify about the role of CARE and Partner

- Both partners set priority action plan to system

- Joint process designing, preparing, planning, M&E

- Partners’ interest (MOLISA), impact group

- Based on MOH’s mandate

- Strategic partner at central level MOLISA

- Proven tool strong capacity CARE

- Commitment replicate (signing MOU)

To question no.3: - Identify other possible stakeholder to work with on the partnership objective of replication

- Identify duty bearers/power holders

- Engage local authorities in the process

- (Social) media can be used

- Replication with other country in ASEAN

- Evidence trailer to partner interests

- Regional exchange, share and learn

- Donor communication

To question no.4: - Context and political system

Lack of evidence

“Bottom up” model requires time

Lack of resources (human, financial)

- Less accountable to mandate (is it/to what level affecting partnership objective)

No partner to replicate

Partner don’t see it is within their mandate

Weak/no links between

- To address these challenges

Build relationship with government + donor to address lack of resources

Adapt model to make more cost- effective

Continuous monitoring of policy environment to take advantage of leverage opportunities

Don’t proceed

Convince partner it is within their mandate

Build links/bridges between different levels of government, etc To question no.5: - Explore opportunity for replication of model

- Replication more feasible with partner’s commitment, mandate in addition to MOU

- Find out the strategic partner is helped replicate the model

- Documentation of evident what’s work? What’s not work?

- Disseminate information

Case Study on Solidarity Association of Beer promoters in Cambodia (SABC) By Ms. Kalyan Rath, Senior Program Officer, Gender Base Violent Projects

This case fits to benchmark no#1: Ensure clarity about the purpose of the relationship - Partnership objectives involving over time - Experiences with a CBO - Three phases of partnership working on Socially Marginbalised Women

Phase1: formative stage (CARE’s role is trainer, and SABC’s role is project beneficiries)

Phase2: Organisational development stage (CARE’s role is capacity building, and SABC’s role is member of CARE)

Phase3: Advocacy stage (CARE’s role is capacity building and mentoring, and SABC’s role is independent voice and sub grantee)

- CARE is shifting roles based on capacity of partners and it selves - Women empower since the early stage they were beer sellers moving to trainers and advocacy

actors - Objective of partnership fits to project and government policy - Good selection of partners at the early stage - Knowledge manages well from phase to phase even staff turns over time to time Mini research during the tea/coffee break:

What is challenging to work in partnership with SABC

Funding agencies support short term, cannot reach long term impacts

Conflict of interest among stakeholders (e.g. beer companies who used to have benefits from this group of women)

SABC still needs capacity strengthening from theme to theme periodically What CARE Cambodia learned from this partnership benchmark no.1 of real practice

Partnership evolved to fill recognised gaps in support for entertainment workers. First in

knowledge; later in national representation.

As the relationship is one of mentoring and coaching, links between partners have remained

strong and deep. This has led to a deep level of partnership, with SABC regularly

approaching CARE for support.

The closer the relationship, the stronger the organisation becomes

When compared to similar local partners with less engagement with CARE, SABC has

improved very rapidly in terms of technical knowledge, management skills and voice.

Long relationship has contributed to SABC being well known at Ministry level

Continued funding has played a part in this.

Forming member groups and solidarity early in the partnership is beneficial

Compared to other similar activities, building a member base has improved capacity and led

to national influence faster.

SABC members identified needs which informed future CARE programming

Such as identifying the need for Gender Based Violent focal points at district level

What CARE Cambodia can do differently in future (Follow up/Next step)

Continuingly coaching, and mentoring SABC

Be ready to respond change from partners when capacity is graduated

Try to replicate the model to other sectors within CARE Cambodia

Group discussion toward the case of CARE Cambodia: Following four questions: - In this case, the partnership activities, roles etc changed over time what was different in the

different phases?

- What was good (strengths) about these changes?

- What influence objective to change?

- What challenges might we face in changing partnership objectives over time? How could these be

reduced?

- What are Key points/new ideas? Results of group discussion: To question no.1:

- CARE:

o Monitoring

o Collecting issue

o Focus on health related issue

o Identified + raked issues

- Partner:

o Reporting (Same as BHM)

o Relationship with local community (same as Laos + PNG)

o Trainee/follower

o Help reached project target

- Advocacy:

o CARE role:

Facilitation

Coordination

Capacity building

Enhanced capacities of SABC

o SABC role:

Negotiation government

Coordination/P.S

- Target organization

Consultant, service provider

- SABC role:

o Member organization

o Trainers finance strategy

o Implementer/advocator

o Advocate/fighting for change on GBV

o Communicate/advocate with higher level

o Trainers

To question no.2: - The roles change fix with the organizational change in the positive way

- Can expand their scope, not only beer Ronster but the other private sector also

- Focus more on Gender Based Violent (GBV)

- CARE’s role:

o Coaching

o Empowering SABC

o Increased CARE capacity RH Gender Based Violent, Women Empowerment Advocacy

o Alignment with government mandate i.e. MOWA, GBV

o More completive in getting fund/grant

To question no.3: - Donor

- Hot topics, priorities of group

- Change in operating environment

- Capacity of partner

- Interest of partner

- CARE priorities

To question no.4: - Capacity development in short time

- Capacity of implementer-i.e. CARE or partner

- Conflict of interest (face new risks) risk analysis for new partner roles

- Impact on partner members

- Not confidence in making discussion on going capacity building role

- Behavior change

- Common understanding:

o Clean in project design

o Good project + partnership inception

o Higher level sensitization tower level, community level managing expectations

o Internal skill assessments

- Long term programs

To question no.5: - Don’t copy/paste - Partner participates early stage

- Will be continued

DAY THREE: Thursday 20th November 2014

Analysis of lessons learned of two days and future priorities By Ms. Cathy Emery and Ms. Jane Cousins, the key facilitators

- Discussion on key themes and priorities identified by the groups

Benchmark no#3: monitor and manage the quality of the relationship

Individual partnership strategy development

Regional workshop

Advocacy capacity building of CSOs

Engaging private sector in partnership - Key themes’ group discussion questions on government partnership

What do really mean?

What processes/methodologies that could be useful?

What are challenges with monitoring the quality of the relationship?

How to promote responsibility/accountability with CARE for monitoring and managing the quality of the relationship?

What is new ideas/learning? - Results of group discussion

To question no.1: Common understand Honesty and open discussion Equal voice Respect Follow or implement agreed/planned activities

To question no.2: Keep informing and asking permission before doing/implementing any project Regular meeting and reporting Planning Informal events Analyze the driver of change Highlight the challenges that government faces

To question no.3: Government reluctant to talk about their weakness

Staff turn over

Attitude/style of government staff

Not honest (Government’s staff)

Focus on quantity rather quality

Difficult to analyse the driver of changes

Red type or hierarchy in communication

How to analyse the driver of changes

Owned policies mot allow to share information

To question no.4: Speak to higher level

Speak directly to individual government

Match government mandate & CARE mandate

Advocacy plays important role

Contact person to responsible for partnership

To question no.5: Using the different way of communication at different level

Key message: a staff to be recruited at country office to responsible for partnership

Documenting PQMF work By Ms. Cathy Emery and Ms. Jane Cousins, the key facilitators

- Drafting key sections of the report - Lao team writes a brief report on Vietnam case - Myanmar works on Cambodia Case - Timor-Leste works on Papua New Guinea - Vietnam works on Laos Case - Cambodia works on Myanmar Case - Papua New Guinea works on Timor-Leste Case

Planning By Ms. Cathy Emery and Ms. Jane Cousins, the key facilitators

- Country office plans for sharing results of this mini forum - Action plan for model replication could be apply in your country

Evaluation By Ms. Cathy Emery and Ms. Jane Cousins, the key facilitators

- Individual evaluation done by filling form

DAY FOUR: Friday morning, 21th November 2014 LAO TEAM DOES OWN REFLECTION BEFORE DEPARTURE What Lao team finds any challenging for working with partnership aligns three benchmarks:

- CSOs in Lao PDR is political issues - CSO organizational capacity is limited skills, and partner sometimes has many donors - Still not clear among us on partnership objective and program objective - Time consuming to find focal point persons for wining champion - Partner’s objective is changing on funding agencies, not maintain long term objective - Partners reluctant to talk about their weaknesses/gaps

What Lao team learned from this mini forum:

- Select the best/right partners at early stage - Capacity assessment should be done before agreement - Know strengths and weakness of both - Clear role and responsibility before engaging any assignment - Clear partnership objective and program objective - Partnership objective changes overtime - Role shifting of CARE and partner based on capacity of both - Model replication cannot copy and paste, need analysis before adoption - Individual relationship influences institutional relationship - Mapping relationship - Find driven of change to win champion when encounter hard partners - Link to monitoring quality of results - Documentation the processes and lessons

What Lao team can do differently in Lao PDR:

- Firstly, share results/key learning from this forum with our country office’ staff

Together with PQ team discuss and develop key learning from this PQMF in Cambodia Share key learning with all CARE Laos CD, ADCP, Program Managers, Project Managers, Finance

Officers, HR and IT – Dec 9, 2014 Encourage application of 3 Partnership Best Practice Benchmarks in different projects of CARE

Laos

Write up the Case Studies for further sharing and learning

Seek support from the CD and ACDP - Find the focal point persons in chart of partnership ??? - Follow up with partnership capacity plan with GCA, SODA, …. - New project with new partners is an opportunity to replicate model - Share information with regional discussion through email

Lao PDR Vientiane Capital P.O. Box 4328 Tel. (+856 21) 217727 and 212991 Ext. 110 Fax (+856 21) 214415 Mobile (+856 20) 55641055 Email: [email protected]

We seek a world of hope, tolerance and social justice,

where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security.

PQMF on partnership benchmarks of good practice Report

Documents