Results of the Organizational Performance and Learning Baseline for the Latin America and Caribbean Region Today, I want to share with you the results of the organizational performance baseline survey carried out in the LAC region. Before presenting the results, I will make a brief reference to the model we have developed for measuring organizational performance in the region. This model allows obtaining information about our program, resource mobilization, financial management performance, as well as about human resources and governance.

What constitutes good organizational performance? The outcome of our work show evidence of reduced poverty, improved social justice, more people living in dignity and security. (Impact). We have clear evidence that our work (i.e. what we say, what we do, and how we do it) is aligned with our vision, our values and our programming principles This is not only true in our own opinion but also true from the perspective of other stakeholders (participants, partners, donors and other constituents. In order to measure organizational performance, we need to be clear about what constitutes good organizational performance. We have included three levels, which we have taken into account for developing indicators and data collection tools on organizational performance: 1) The first level refers to the outcome of our work, that is, our impact. Our organizational performance is good if we have evidence of reduced poverty, improved social justice, more people living in dignity and security. 2) The second level refers to what we do and how we do its, that is the quality of our work for achieving the desired impact. Here, what we have defined as good organizational performance is that what we do and how we do it is aligned with our vision, values and programming principles. 3) The third level refers to how we are viewed by others. Very importantly, the model includes indicators and tools to assess the opinions of a variety of stakeholders about how they view our performance.

Program Baseline Results To what extent have programs in the Latin America and Caribbean Region integrated CARE International’s Programming Principles? Now I will show you some of the results of the organizational performance baseline which used the indicators included in the model. For gathering the information we have developed tools. Let me start with the results relating to CARE’s Programming Principles. To what extent have programs in the LAC region integrated these principles?

Designs, ongoing programs and evaluations analyzed for the baseline 84 projects designed in the 12 months prior to the baseline. 63 projects implemented for at least 12 months. 34 projects evaluated in the 24 months prior to the survey. The baseline reviewed 84 projects designed in the 12 months prior to the survey, 63 projects that had been implemented for at least 12 months, and 34 projects evaluated in the 24 months prior to the baseline. Why is it important to include designs, ongoing programs and evaluated programs in the baseline? Recent designs give us a picture of the extent we are presently integrating the Programming Principles in designs. In a few years we will be able to assess whether these projects not only integrated Programming Principles in their design, but also in their implementation. The review of current programs and evaluations gives us insights about our current work and the extent it integrates our principles.

I will show you first the baseline results for recent designs I will show you first the baseline results for recent designs. As you can see, the Programming Principles that were best integrated in recent designs were work with partners, accountability and responsibility, and address discrimination. Empowerment and sustainability were much less integrated, while conflict resolution was the least integrated principle. The reason why sustainability scores relatively low is that addressing underlying causes of poverty is now an element we consider when we talk about sustainability. There is no sustainability without addressing UCPs.

Percentage of designs that included an analysis of underlying causes of poverty. Here you see the the percentage of designs that included a UCP analysis. It is important to mention that the analysis did not have to be necessarily one that was conducted by CARE – designs could have reviewed good UCP analyses from other sources. Overall, about 60% of recent designs had either a superficial or no analysis.

Percentage of designs according to participants’ involvement in the analysis leading to the design. In this slide you see one reason why the principle of empowerment scores low in designs. Were designs used as an opportunity for empowering the people with whom we intend to work? In 44% of designs participants were only partly involved in the analysis, and in another 19% they were not involved at all.

Percentage of designs according to participants’ involvement in deciding about objectives, strategies and activities. Another explanation of why empowerment scores low in designs is that in only 28% participants were part of deciding about objectives, strategies and activities.

Percentage of designs that have clarity about who will be the partners. Most designs, 76%, were clear about who will be the partner for the proposed project.

Percentage of designs that include responsibilities of partners. Two-thirds of designs described the responsibilities of partners and in 65% of designs the responsibilities of partners were as important as CARE’s (and not marginal with CARE having the center-stage).

Percentage of designs that include a strategy for promoting the responsibilities of duty bearers. The majority of recent designs included a strategy for promoting the responsibilities o duty-bearers, that is, they worked with others beyond the poor and marginalized for helping them fulfill their obligations towards these groups. This result is high but not surprising: most projects work with people like health center staff, teachers, community leaders, etc. It will be interesting to further analyze this finding – which we have not done yet – given that we have information about the duty bearers that were mentioned.

Percentage of designs that identify discriminated-against groups. Most designs identified discriminated-against groups within poor and marginalized populations. That is, they did not treat them as “all the same” but differentiated within poor and marginalized groups those that suffered worst discrimination.

Percentage of designs that identify potential conflicts. This slide shows a result that will require from our attention and follow-up. Only 21% of designs identified potential conflicts. By conflicts we mean several things – existing conflicts between, for example, ethnic groups. But here we also assessed whether the design analyzed what kind of conflicts could result from implementing the project. Empowering the poor and discriminated-against will almost never be conflict-free. Very few designs analyzed what conflicts could arise as a result of implementing their strategies.

Percentage of designs that identify potential risks. This slide, too, shows a result that requires our immediate attention. 81% of designs did not identify the possible risks the target population could face. By risk we mean here natural and human made emergencies. For example, and even if the proposed project was for an area prone to hurricanes, this was not mentioned nor considered in the design. This is a clear sign that we have to focus more on emergency preparedness and planning!

Percentage of designs that include a strategy for contributing to Millennium Development Goals. Nearly 60% of designs had a clear strategy for contributing to at least one MDG. This percentage was lower in South America than in Central America.

Percentage of designs that have a strategy for ensuring sustainability. 61% of recent designs had a strategy for ensuring the sustainability of impacts and effects.

Percentage of ongoing programs by the extent they have integrated programming principles. Let me show you now some of the main results regarding ongoing programs included in the baseline. The same pattern emerges as for designs: conflict resolution and empowerment scored the lowest.

Percentage of ongoing programs that have well-functioning mechanisms for sharing management with partners. Now to some specific results. The baseline showed that 71% of ongoing programs had a well-functioning mechanism for sharing management with partners.

Percentage of ongoing programs in which participants take part of decisions concerning the project. Here, again, the explanation why empowerment scores low for ongoing programs, too: only in 25% participants took fully part of decisions concerning the project.

Percentage of ongoing programs in which participants take part of monitoring and adjusting activities. And yet another reason for the low empowerment score: In only 13% of ongoing programs did participants take fully part of monitoring and adjusting activities.

Percentage of evaluated programs by the extent they have integrated programming principles. Some baseline results for the project evaluations we reviewed: They, too, show that in the LAC region we need to make the greatest effort for better integrating the principles of conflict resolution and empowerment, as well as sustainability, in our programs.

Percentage of evaluated programs that show contribution to MDGs. Of the evaluations reviewed, 53% project had a linkage to at least one MDG and about one-third had evidence that they contributed to a MDG.

This slide shows the baseline results for several indicators for evaluated projects. 68% were successful in promoting more inclusive decision-making and 71% had evidence of improving the conditions and status of most excluded and marginalized. About half had evidence that those with obligations toward the poor and marginalized carried out actions for benefiting these groups. Conflict prevention and risk management were poor (as also evidenced in designs).

Percentage of evaluated programs in which participants took part of the evaluation. This slide shows that in only 27% of evaluated programs participants were fully part of the evaluation (setting the evaluation objectives, gathering information, analyzing and discussing the findings). We have progress to make to ensure that evaluations are an empowering experience for the people with whom we work.

What have we learned from carrying out the organizational performance baseline? The model is very useful for obtaing a clear picture of CARE’s performance in the region (for each country and region-wide). The usefulness of the model stems from the fact that it is based on indicators relating to the Programming Principles and Management Framework. Using the model for fostering dialogue and learning within country teams and accross the region has been one of its greatest benefits. The results of the baseline allow establishing clear targets for the region (for themes as important as our impact on underlying causes of poverty and discrimination). The model will allow to measure our progress in regard to impact, integration of programming principles, resource mobilization, and staff’s participation in decision-making processes. What have we learned from carrying out the organizational performance baseline? (Read slide) We are very pleased that we can now make decisions about where to focus our attention based on these results. As you can see, they give ample room for a rich dialogue – as I hope we will have now. Thank you.