Resilience Building and the Theory of Change – Accelerating Resilience (3 of 3)

Building resilience into Somalia multi-sectoral humanitarian programming.
The “Change Statement” for this Somalia is based on our ability to provide, or support the provision of basic health, nutrition and education services. Within this theory we are not looking directly at longer term developmental change within the area of operations but rather, a sustainable change within the programme – building governance capacity, gender equality and community resilience within the three core programmes of Health, Nutrition and Education (creating a multi-sectoral approach to Resilience).

This approach is based on an understanding of Resilience as “the ability of an individual, a household or a community exposed to hazard to withstand, adapt to and recover from the effects of the hazard in a timely and efficient manner”, but it extends it – in line with definitions of Resilience adopt by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of hazard in a timely/efficient manner ) and The Resilience Alliance (The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change ); where the definition includes systems & society.

There are three core programmes (Health, Nutrition and education), each of which has its own specific Theory of Change – practically designed to focus on the provision, or support for the provision of basic services to the population as the Somali national political structures develop, the federal states form and the local authorities move to a status of political representation. This will take many years so under the first of what will be several Theories of Change the focus is on building the capacity of the Staff, Systems and Structures within these basic services as a foundation for future programming, including specific opportunities to consolidate the three programmes around:
• preventative and protective programming that aligns the target beneficiaries across each programme,
• prioritising the Governance and Gender elements of each programme,
• target TB patients. HIV is not that prevalent in southern Somalia where as TB as a communicable disease that requires daily, prolonged treatment (8-12 months) has a greater impact on marginalisation of the person and disrupted livelihoods as the patient (and family) becomes an informal IDP for the duration of the treatment,
• humanitarian readiness (given the continuing humanitarian crisis in Somalia)
• building resilience through the systems and structures that support both basic services and the surge capacity to respond to the ill-health and malnutrition consequences of a humanitarian crisis.

The Humanitarian Readiness approach focuses on the Theories of Change for the three programmes – building the Staff, Systems and Structure so that the capacity exists to increase services should the demand increase. This is in line with the Resilience approach, outlined for our Nutrition programme and based on the experience of Trócaire in East Africa in Resilience-grounded programmes.

This application of a Resilience Theory of Change is based on the overall Health & Nutrition programme. Drawing on the research conducted in the aftermath of the 2011/12 drought in East Africa, which defined resilience in a humanitarian context as “the ability of an individual, a household or a community exposed to hazard to withstand, adapt to and recover from the effects of the hazard in a timely and efficient manner”.

There is a link between the capacity (building & delivery) element of the Health Theory and that of the Nutrition Theory. This captures the inter-dependency at staffing level within the District Health services for all illness-types and the acknowledgement that nutrition is a medical condition and that nutritional treatment (through fortified foods and stabilisation services) is a medical/health service and that it is their responsibility to provide these services. And there is a link between the Health Theory and both the Education and Nutrition Theories in encouraging a change in attitude – within the:
• family towards good diet, domestic hygiene, breast-feeding, etc.
• community-based health workers that work directly with families in indentifying malnutrition and so, who are best placed to support families in addressing poor nutrition and hygiene practices as a preventative/protective approach to malnutrition; and
• District Health staff in their acceptance of malnutrition as an illness and their responsibility to manage the supplies as they would drugs and treat the patients as they would any other

And, to fully integrate the sectoral based programmes, there are key linkages between the Education programme and both the Health and Nutrition programmes at the capacity-to-attitude stage of the theory of change. The education theory allows us to target beneficiaries more effectively and reach them in a more protective/preventive way, complementing the response capacity of the Health & Nutrition Programmes.

When building resilience in a humanitarian context it is vital that the relief acts as an accelerator to existing longer-term programming and not simply as a standalone intervention.

It is most likely that Somalia will encounter another humanitarian crisis during this strategic period – whether political, security or environmental as drought is forecast and Somalia is still at Crisis levels from the 2011 famine).

Readiness and Resilience will form the basis of the response to humanitarian crisis leveraging the established programmes – Health providing care to those suffering ill health from any crisis, Nutrition being the surge-response providing protective and responsive assistance to malnourished people and Education as a targeting mechanism to identify those most vulnerable through the community structures and the school capacity.

The Readiness approach focuses on the Theories of Change for the three programmes – building the Staff, Systems and Structure so that the capacity exists to increase services should the demand increase. This is in line with the Resilience approach, outlined for our Nutrition programme and based on the experience of Resilience-grounded programmes

Resilience Building and the Theory of Change – Introducing Innovation (2 of 3)

Kenya Arid & Semi-Arid lands (ASALs):
The rationale supporting the design of this programme was to increase household and community resilience by producing surpluses through better husbandry and diversification and developing collective storage mechanisms in the context of better post-harvest management. By leveraging the integrated experience of Livelihoods with Governance and Human Rights (GHR) programming, allowed for the incorporation of activities to stimulate conflict transformation and strengthen accountability in the use of devolved public funds in order to achieve greater impact in livelihoods and resilience. Resilience will be built by addressing conflict, which is restricting access to productive land and natural resources, and developing the ability of communities to engage critically in decisions over the allocation of public funds with the help of social auditing skills.

Strategy of Change :The programme was designed to optimise the existing capacity in community mobilization models. Such approaches apply a diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1962) model in that ‘early adopters’ and individuals with peer influence are the first to be targeted to take up modified behaviours and others are encouraged to follow once personal risks have been better evaluated and additional rewards demonstrated (eg. successful introduction of the Toggenberg breed of goats which provide higher milk yields).

Outputs associated with community capacity in DRR, conflict transformation and auditing public funds, in which trained community leaders and representatives model new roles within a social context build more on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1963) with its emphasis on role modeling, building self-efficacy and integrating personal, social and environmental factors. Our work on conflict is based on a conflict transformation approach, which recognizes that conflict may be embedded in a pattern of conflictual relationships that extend beyond the actual site of conflict (Lederach, 1995).

Realising Change: Drawing on past experience, including the 2011 drought, the ARP integrates humanitarian, resilience and longer-term development elements based on a model of action in which access to improved and diversified agricultural (livestock and crop) inputs at household level (by early adopter families/peer influencers) will create more resilient (moving from coping with hunger-gaps to seasonal food supply) food security (production capacity linked to agricultural value chain improvements) for these families that in turn will support the adoption by more households of improved, more sustainable livestock and farming practices within communities.

And from this basis (attitude) communities can come together, around the agricultural food value chain (capacity) to work at an aggregate-level (cross community) on food resilience, such as improved animal husbandry (productivity, disease resilience) creating animal products (milk, meat, animal hide, etc.) that can either complement dietary needs (food security) or be sold (income generation); and extensive farming (scale) based on the success of intensive (sustenance) farming techniques, creating food surpluses that can be stored, preserved (food security and diet) or sold (income generation) creating the foundation for more cooperative approaches to strengthening the strategic points (adding value) in the agricultural value chain (such as post-harvest management, value-chain improvements and commercialisation).

Resilience Building and the Theory of Change – CMDRR as a point of entry (1 of 3)

Ethiopia Programme Design & Theory of Change
I facilitated the design of a programme titled the “Ethiopia Relief and Rehabilitation Programme (ERRP)”. The ERRP draws on past experience of humanitarian assistance provided by several agencies in collaboration with partners in targeted geographic areas. The ERRP Theory of Change document (see sample diagrams) provides details of the conceptual approach used to translate these lessons into innovative humanitarian interventions that can address both the consequence of a crisis and the underlying causes – not necessarily at the root level (e.g. climate change) but at the household level addressing the causes of individual people and households vulnerability to these crisis.

The challenge facing any humanitarian response in Ethiopia is to not simply address the immediate consequences of a crisis - particularly predictable or recurring crisis, but to do so in a manner that:
• strengthens rather than depletes community coping strategies;
• directly links the relief assistance being provided with the recovery and development activities (LRRD) that support an effective transition strategy from emergency to longer term resilience;
• builds resilience at the most effective level – individual & household, of a humanitarian intervention;
• allows for continuous improvement of the support and assistance that is provided to the community that enables downwards accountability and quality (as envisioned in CMDRR)

In addition to embedding the LRRD approach to designing humanitarian responses – that both meet the immediate humanitarian needs and create links to longer term development initiatives, the theory of change that underpins the programme also looks at understanding the factors that can impact on community resilience and incorporating resilience-building into the modalities of assistance that are provided.
Two simple examples include cash-based programming and nutritional programming:

Cash-based programming: where a humanitarian need has been identified and, with functioning local markets (supply) it is possible to provide assistance through cash transfer (from unconditional cash transfer to cash-for-work type programmes)
In the majority of cases cash-based programming has a condition for eligibility/participation – cash-4-work where a number of days must be completed (the condition) for the beneficiary to be eligible to receive the humanitarian assistance. By understanding why that same beneficiary needs assistance in the first place (the vulnerability) and designing the condition around addressing that vulnerability allows for the humanitarian assistance to be provided and for the vulnerability against future shock to be mitigated (e.g. Cash-4-literacy, vocational skills, increased water harvesting – as well as cash-4-work that targets strategic community &/or livelihood infrastructure)

Nutritional assistance: where the humanitarian crisis – whether acute (i.e. sudden and extreme) or chronic (i.e. long-term and recurring) results in levels of malnutrition among vulnerable households.
Fortified foods are the primary assistance in crisis that result in malnutrition. CSB, Unimix and plumpynut (SFP) are provided to those individuals that do not require more intensive treatment (OTP). By adding a family food ration (or cash transfer) to those families that have a member being treated for malnutrition, this can protect other members of the family from becoming malnourished and can also ensure that the fortified foods prescribed for the person being treated are not shared among the other family members. Rather than a relief assistance that ends when the food has been consumed, by providing a durable source of nutrition – for example goat, sheep or chickens, you can provide the protective food ration to the family and also create a transition from the aid (dependency) to the families recovery (recovery) – opening a door potentially to supplementary nutrition through meat, milk, eggs and – via the scale of off-spring, income)

The opportunity that has been incorporated into the three objectives (long term results) of this programmes draw on the short-term immediate and short-term intermediate results across all three objectives - vertical logic across objectives rather than the horizontal logic within objectives that underpins Development Logic Models and Results Frameworks. This is consistent with the Humanitarian Theory of Change (see the Annex) for relief-based programmes; and is consistent with the LRRD approach that supports the ERRP two year programme.

The ERRP has three objectives (long-term results) each of which prioritise the three opportunities to successfully engage in the Ethiopian humanitarian context – each objective support the other through the capacity to:
• work continuously with communities through preparedness and risk mitigation (CMDRR) assistance in a advance of any potential crisis;
• work collaboratively with communities during recurring, seasonal (chronic) crisis to provide relief and address the underlying causes of vulnerability at household level;
• escalate a response as and when a crisis escalates to acute proportions (e.g. sudden-onset crisis or peak in slow onset crisis such as drought) to provide relief in an accountable manner while also focusing on the underlying causes of vulnerability;
• create a link as an exit/transition strategy from between chronic and acute crisis interventions to preparedness and risk mitigation assistance against future crisis.

The Logic Model identifies the key activities, outputs and short-term results that form the basis of this accountable approach to continuous programme improvement and household resilience-building. And as explained above, these activities, outputs and results support the entire programme – building the capacity of individual actors and combining these to optimise

ERRP and Protection
The Theory of Change and design principles that underpin the ERRP are based sound protection practices. The humanitarian interventions across each of the three objectives look to embed into the individual projects – aligned to mainstreaming approaches to key cross-cutting themes, but also in the core concepts of the modalities of assistance that will support the LRRD approach. That is to say:
• By strengthening existing traditional community structures as part of an integrated approach to CMDRR we create an entry point for women, youth and marginalised groups to become involved in these structures – increasing their participation (their voice) in community decision-making on risk prevention and preparedness, periods when vulnerability can change to exploitation;
• By identify the needs of both the community and the individual as part of the mobilisation of crisis response (both chronic and acute) we can design modalities of assistance that address the causes of vulnerability and both community and household level – linking not only relief to recovery & development but also linking assistance to durable solutions to vulnerability within communities
• By providing more durable solutions in cash and food/dietary assistance we will be proactively protecting the beneficiary households against future vulnerability to crisis – making them less vulnerable to exploitation of future assistance
• And by adhering to good humanitarian standards during project interventions - as embodied in the approaches outlined below, we can mitigate the instances for exploitation during times of crisis

To summarise, the basis of the ERRP is to facilitate a tangible, demonstrable connection between our response and the needs of communities; AND a tangible, demonstrable link between those immediate needs of the community (the consequence of the crisis) and the underlying causes of either the crisis or the vulnerability of people as a result of the crisis.

The Theory of Change for humanitarian interventions links relief to recovery and development (LRRD). A description of the Humanitarian theory of change adopted in East Africa is provided in the Annex and looks to answer questions such as:
• What interventions will we directly engage in to meet the needs of the targeted communities?
• And how will we define eligibility, prioritise vulnerability and, where we are not providing 100% coverage of eligible families/people, select beneficiaries?

However, the challenge facing any humanitarian response in Ethiopia is to not simply address the immediate consequences of a crisis - particularly predictable or recurring crisis, but to do so in a manner:
• that strengthens rather than depletes community coping strategies;
• that directly links the relief assistance being provided with the recovery and development activities (LRRD) that support an effective transition strategy from emergency to longer term resilience
• that builds resilience at the most effective level – individual & household, of a humanitarian intervention.

And it is this combination of resources, activities and results that has been captured in the ERRP Theory of Change, the programme model (logic model and results framework) and the proposed modalities of assistance.
In addition to embedding the LRRD approach to designing humanitarian responses – that both meet the immediate humanitarian needs and create links to longer term development initiatives, the theory of change that underpins ERRP programme also looks at understanding the factors that can impact on community resilience and incorporating resilience-building into the modalities of assistance that are provided.

Building Resilience – Crisis, Coping and Change

To date the approach to Resilience for humanitarian programming has focused on the LRRD concept – extending it to the phases that a person / household passes through within Relief, Recovery & Development. Rather than a Humanitarian Programme, for an integrated programme of this nature the focus should be on “humane” programming, with resilience being built in stages:
1. Live-saving: where an immediate intervention is required to simply save a life (e.g. immediate food & nutrition aid)
2. Life-preserving: where we are looking to reduce the risk to a person’s life once it has been “saved” (e.g. health & hygiene interventions directly designed to reduce disease & contagion)
3. Life-sustaining: when the immediate risks to life have been mitigated and we can focus on recovery & rehabilitation (e.g. family livelihoods; looking to build resilience of the family beyond a single season)
4. Life-enhancing: Once a family has some degree of certainty (resilience) over food & income then the focus can move to quality of life (the D in LRRD)
Resilience, as a new concept rather than a new word, is related to a person’s & a household’s ability to cope with crisis (and then linking to a community’s & economy’s); and as such it is a phase in the development cycle rather than a standalone outcome.

Building Resilience & Humanitarian Preparedness - The Readiness approach focuses on the Theories of Change for the three programmes – building the Staff, Systems and Structure so that the capacity exists to increase services should the demand increase. This application of a Resilience Theory of Change is based on integrated programming. Drawing on the research conducted in the aftermath of the 2011/12 drought in East Africa, which defined resilience in a humanitarian context as “the ability of an individual, a household or a community exposed to hazard to withstand, adapt to and recover from the effects of the hazard in a timely and efficient manner”.
When building resilience in a humanitarian context it is vital that the relief acts as an accelerator to existing longer-term programming and not simply as a standalone intervention.

Building Resilience – Linking Relief to Resilience

There are many definitions for Resilience, with many commonalities to these definitions, that can be summarized as follows:
• Capacity/ ability – all of the definitions refer to a ‘system’s’ (being a household, community or even state’s) abilities or capacities. It is worth also noting that traditional humanitarian response has not placed a strong emphasis on developing capacities and abilities and this may be an area that organisations could place increasing emphasis in future.
• Positively manage change/ absorb stress or disturbance/ adapt/ recover/ bounce back/ re-organise – these objectives would fall within the remit of DRR and would be the responsibility of both humanitarian and development agencies. These also relate strongly to the first point on capacities/ abilities.
• Without compromising long-term prospects/ protect livelihoods/ quickly recover in ways that reduce chronic vulnerability and facilitate inclusive growth.

These final points relate to recovery of the system and its ability to have coped with shocks and stresses and come out the other side without long term prospects being damaged. This is where ‘humanitarian’ response could be said to have traditionally failed. It is also an area that is seen as largely the responsibility of ‘development’ interventions that need to work in contexts with an understanding of the inevitability of drought and so drought proof their development investments.
There is an interconnected nature of different aspects of development and humanitarian programming. This means that a humanitarian resilience theory of change needs to complement the overall development theory of change for the country and the context. As a result humanitarian interventions are designed to provide life-saving interventions at a time and in a way that contributes, and does not undermine, the achievement of the wider theory of change defined by the capacity that an organisation wishes to create. Examples of this are humanitarian interventions in Ethiopia and Kenya which have been designed to contribute to longer term resilience building whilst maintaining the lifesaving/ preserving nature of humanitarian response.

By designing humanitarian relief responses (resources) that directly support the short-term (immediate & intermediate) results of the longer term development programmes, the coping capacity of communities, as a key indicator of building resilience, can be improved – contributing to the development goals for the community(s). The recovery capacity of communities should increase in line with the longer term development goal(s) and the need for external humanitarian relief should fall as coping capacity increases as exemplified in the diagram below. This is not the dominant scenario at present where despite significant amounts of humanitarian assistance when crises occur the general trajectory in poverty and vulnerability is downwards because of late or inappropriate response
Where needs are identified in the situation or needs analysis that are not directly addressed in the programme/intervention results we must acknowledge either how we will incorporate these needs (e.g. referral to another party, advocacy on key "consequences", etc.) or provide an explicit reason (consistent with our programme/intervention) why we cannot.

This integrated approach has various strengths, including:
+ it allows for a consistent approach to programming across distinct regions or zones, based on outcome & impact;
+ it allows for the pace on programme implementation – of core programme plus broader outcome & impact priorities, to reflect the progress and challenges in each region/, depending on the political, security and development/ humanitarian context for that zone/region; and
+ it allows for Implementing Agencies to actively share success, opportunity and continuous improvement throughout programme implementation

Within this approach, both Donors and Implementing agencies have the scope to target specific cross-cutting or sectoral challenges that are relevant/prevalent in their specific areas of operations – addressing gender-specific issues (FGM, SGBV), treatment of HIV, TB and the associated stigma for beneficiaries of prolonged, communicable diseases; strengthening local/traditional community engagement in public policy processes (from cross-community working as the local environment becomes more stable, etc. )

The Theory of Change – applying the concept to programme strategy & design

The following is an overview diagram explaining the process for preparing for a humanitarian response (although the same process applies to development programming) – incorporating the Theory of Change outlined:

Context analysis; The operating environment within which the beneficiaries are living and we are working. Assuming we have not conducted a formal "Contextual Analysis" (as defined by our key institutional donors) then we draw on 3rd party sources of information to put into context our rationale for engaging in this environment. The context should link to potential donor's broad strategy/priorities for that country (e.g. The priority for Trocaire's East Africa Appeal was "saving lives by providing emergency food, clean water and medical care"). 3rd Party soures can include PEA, HEA, recent baselines (inc. from other organisations), published literature (ICRC, ICG, Enough, etc.) and UN assessment papers (inc. FSNAU, FEWS NET, etc.). Evaluations of past programmes/projects provide a "lessons learnt" for operating in this environment

Situation analysis: This is our stated understanding of the current situation. It is at this stage that we will identify the cross-cutting themes that underpin our approach including our (Trocaire & partners) capacity to engage actively & pro-actively in responding to beneficiary needs. We draw on monitoring reports, partner feedback, recent baseline surveys, etc. to link the "context to the current” situation. The situation analysis is an indication of the escalation of specific issues within the operating context that cause us concern and support the need for our engagement at this time. This is the first point when we start to define potential cross-cutting considerations (e.g. observed coping strategies) we must address, either through direct intervention, M&E processes, accountability procedures, referral systems; engagement with coordination (inc. bilateral arrangements); approach to advocacy or simply documenting issues

Needs analysis: The specific needs of the beneficiary group, supporting our targeting methodology, beneficairy eligibility & selection criteria. Included here are cross-cutting themes as they apply to beneficiaries - including coping strategies and consequences of humanitarian crisis. Community-based needs assessments, partner feedback, monitoring reports, current updates thru' UN system/cluster; internal early warning monitoring.
• Context is the operating environment in which we are operating (National, State & Diocese);
• Situation is the present-day environment in which the intervention is justified/based (security, political, coordination, capacity; season; etc.);
• Needs brings the analysis down to the community, family & beneficiary (vulnerability) level. The needs analysis is the point where we decide what we can directly intervene on and what we can do to assist beneficiaries in their other requirements to get through this period (situation)

Note: Coping Strategies: Not all coping strategies emerge in a needs assessment, particularly when it is conducted at a geo (diocese)-level. The following is a table outlining the escalation of coping strategies that would be expected to be observed – including their severity & reversibility:

What we identify as a Coping Strategy should link back to the Context, Situation and Needs assessments (i.e. why have people adopted these coping strategies?) These coping strategies link into either the direct programme interventions or cross-cutting considerations.

Protection & Cross-cutting considerations:
In the case of Ethiopia and the protection component of the Theory of Change and design principles that underpin the ERRP are based on sound protection practices. The humanitarian interventions across each of the three objectives look to embed into the individual projects – as described both in the mainstreaming approaches outlined below to key cross-cutting themes, but also in the core concepts of the modalities of assistance that will support the LRRD approach. That is to say:
• By strengthening existing traditional community structures as part of an integrated approach to CMDRR we create an entry point for women, youth and marginalised groups to become involved in these structures – increasing their participation (their voice) in community decision-making on risk prevention and preparedness, periods when vulnerability can change to exploitation;
• By identify the needs of both the community and the individual as part of the mobilisation of crisis response (both chronic and acute) we can design modalities of assistance that address the causes of vulnerability at both community and household level – linking not only relief to recovery and development but also linking assistance to durable solutions to vulnerability within communities
• By providing more durable solutions in cash and food/dietary assistance we will be proactively protecting the beneficiary households against future vulnerability to crisis – making them less vulnerable to exploitation of future assistance.
• By adhering to good humanitarian standards during project interventions - as embodied in the approaches outlined below, we can mitigate the instances for exploitation during times of crisis

Prioritisation & targeting:
This is particularly relevant where the geographical area is too wide for any one programme/intervention to cover all communities/needs. We must justify the decision-making process for prioritising certain communities over others (e.g. number of returnees; other NGOs (avoid duplication); seasonal access; etc.). Partner knowledge of population movements (at local level); observation of seasonal changes & impact on communities/roads/livelihoods; geo-specific needs assessment (e.g. the paragraphs of FEWSNet, UN, SRA/LRA reports etc. specific to diocese); etc. Geo or Community targeting is the first key decision-point on defining vulnerability, eligibility and capacity (to assist) and requires a methodology & evidence to support the decision to target specific communities (note: it does not have to justify "why not" but must demonstrate the rationale & reasoning behind the "why")

When we are not targeting 100% of the vulnerable population we must understand how the actual targeting & selection will occur so that we can demonstrate either:
• the prioritisation of vulnerability (i.e. the comparison between communities and families to demonstrate how we chose one of another) that was the basis of beneficiary eligibility & selection; or
• the reasoning behind why we did not use a vulnerability & prioritisation approach to beneficiary eligibility & selection – there can be justifiable reasons why one locality, community &/or family is chosen but we need to document this and link it back to “cross-cutting considerations” as, although not directly involved in the programme, all communities & families within our target AoOs will be affected by the intervention.

Risks, Assumptions & Dependencies (RAD) are an output of the Context, Situation & Needs Analysis; they are our assessment of the factors that influence the design of our intervention and as such we must continuously monitor these factors so that we can make promt decisions should our assessment have been incorrect or should the context, situation or needs change during the course of implementation.
• Risk: Those things that we can describe, define but cannot predict with certainty but that we presume WILL happen (e.g. There is a risk of rain). As a result we must put contingencies in place that will draw on our resources & become part of our work plans & reporting (wear gum-boots & carry an umbrella)
• Assumption: Those things that we can describe, define but cannot predict with certainty but that we presume WILL NOT happen (e.g. we assume it will not rain so no need to buy an umbrella). We monitor our assumptions to ensure that they remain sound during the course of the programme
• Dependency: Those things that we can describe, define and predict but are under the control of a 3rd party (we are dependent on the UN/state-led coordination mechanisms; on WFP supplies arriving; etc.). We monitor dependencies in the same way as we monitor assumptions as we must make decisions during the course of the intervention, that will draw on our resources, become part of our work-plans and that we must report on if we cannot depend on these 3rd parties.

There is a fourth (4th) component of RAD - Issues (RAID). Issues are emerging challenges or opportunities that we could not describe or define at the outset but which impact on our intervention. Issue management draws on Accountability requirements (e.g. complaints handling) & links directly to cross-cutting themes (e.g. documenting human rights issues for referral &/or reporting). In addition to general management, the management & monitoring issues is the continuous "needs analysis" to support advocacy, referral systems, coordination, etc. (the cross-cutting considerations not directly addressed within the direct intervention)

Programme & Partner Monitoring:
The "rule of thumb" is that if it is not reported (or at least documented in a structured way) then it did not happen. Any decision made (note: every decision will have a resource implication) requires supporting evidence which should draw upon a structured monitoring system (so that every decision is not seen as an exception).
Monitoring is Performance Management and should provide sufficient information support decision-making that allows you to continue as planned or make changes, on an on-going basis, to activities that contribute to the achievement of the objectives/outcomes.
• The progress made on agreed activities
• The impact of risks that have materialised on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)
• The impact of assumptions that were incorrect on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)

We monitor in order to gather sufficient information to make good decisions during the course of the intervention (see diagram above):
• Progress monitoring (process & control procedures; and team & work plans)
• Partner Monitoring (against agreed objectives/intervention)
• Financial Monitoring (budget; expenditure; financial controls)
• Risk (& Issue) Management (see RAD above)
• Emergency Monitoring (Early Warning)
• Context & Situation Monitoring (Assumptions & Dependencies)
• Needs & Community (changes in the original justification &/or the current conditions)
• Performance Monitoring (Results & decision-making)

The opportunity of successful monitoring is continuous improvement where we capture practical lessons that can be applied to Performance Management (decision-making & resource optimisation) during the programme.

Remember, good decision-making impacts on resources as all activities use resources, so performance management is resource optimisation. There are only three resources that are affected by decision-making:
•Time: the number of people that you have, their skills, experience and ability to complete the activities
•Things: the tangible things that are available to you to help you complete the activities
•Money: the flexibility to buy either more time (1) or more things (2) that will help you complete the activities

Evaluation is Impact Assessment & Lesson Learning - that is to say, did we achieve what we set out to achieve and how did we do it. This is measured in two phases:
1.Did we do what we said we would do (meet the objectives/outcomes)
2.Did we meet the expectations of the various stakeholders (the Goal)

Evaluation is “a systematic and impartial examination of [humanitarian] action intended to draw lessons to improve policy and practice and enhance accountability" (ECHO) - "To know that you do not know is already to know something" (Confucius))

Audit on the other hand is the determination of whether and to what extent activities and procedures conform to norms and criteria set out in advance. The “Four E”s in audit:
1.Effectiveness: doing the right things
2.Efficiency: doing things the right way
3.Economy: doing things cheap
4.Equity: doing right (being socially responsible in a social audit perspective)

The Theory of Change – Linking Relief to Recovery... to Rehabilitation to Resilience... and to Development (LRR-RRD)

The approach to Resilience is based on the Theory of Change for humanitarian interventions that links relief to recovery and development (LRRD). The following is an overview of the theory of change that Trócaire has adopted in East Africa:

The changes that our programme is designed to facilitate - where sustainable is focused on "sustaining human life during this period of extreme risk; or interventions that link relief to recovery. What interventions will we directly engage in to meet the needs of the targeted communities? And how will we define eligibility, prioritise vulnerability and, where we are not providing 100% coverage of eligible families/people, select beneficiaries?

The results (presented in a Logic Model & Results Framework) are our explanation of the needs of the community and how we can best support/address these needs. The results must be linked (internal design logic & continuity of narrative) to the context, situation, needs & community analysis. Trocaire has defined humanitarian as "where a single or series of disasters overwhelms the ability of the most vulnerable in society to cope” which, using the LRRD theory has two key stages:

Crisis Stage (LR): Any intervention must prioritise the needs of the targeted beneficiary group which is determined by the affect/impact of the humanitarian situation (sudden or slow-onset; safety of the operating environment [after-shock, bombings]; anticipated duration of the intervention/dependency of the beneficiary on external assistance; etc.).

Linking Relief...
Live-saving: where an immediate intervention is required to simply save a life (e.g. immediate food & nutrition aid); and
Life-preserving: where we are looking to reduce the risk to a person’s life once it has been “saved” (e.g. health & hygiene interventions directly designed to reduce disease & contagion)

...to Recovery & Rehabilitation:
Life-sustaining: when the immediate risks to life have been mitigated and we can focus on recovery & rehabilitation (e.g. family livelihoods; looking to build resilience of the family beyond a single season)

... to Development:
Life-enhancing: Once a family has some degree of certainty (resilience) over food & income then the focus can move to quality of life (the D in LRRD)

Resilience Stage (RD): Many, if not all of Trocaire’s humanitarian responses to the drought (& other seasonal emergencies) in East Africa has been founded on an LRRD rationale; building resilience. We can interpret resilience in many ways but in Humanitarian programmes the focus is on the resilience of the person – initially the individual (e.g. OTP nutrition assistance) then the family (e.g. protection rations, family-based NFIs), then the community (multiple-families) and finally the locality (the environment around the family/community). Activities may occur concurrently (e.g. designing environmentally-friendly interventions to provide immediate assistance to families, such as cash-for-work; working with community & locality simultaneously, etc.) but the focus is still person-centric.

1.Resilience of the person and the family: there is no food production without people and so individuals need to have the capacity to
a.produce their food (the land, the physical energy, the husbandry skills),
b.store their food (post-harvest management),
c.preserve their longer-term sources of nutrition (e.g. food preservation to support families through the “hunger gap” between seasons), and
d.to commercialise their assets (food surpluses, alternative livelihoods) so as to generate a flexible, financial buffer to support them during lean times (whether poor harvests of full-on drought).

2.Resilience of the family and the community: The challenge of focusing on resilience is to change the attitudes of people towards the traditional, culturally influenced approach to livelihoods and food production.
a.Sustenance farming which leaves families susceptible to the “hunger gap” between season is as negative as resilient seeds being planted in areas that cannot provide sufficient water and spoil nutrients for this type of planting
b.Similarly the attitude of many pastoralists, seeing their livestock as “wealth” in itself does not build resilience of those pastoralists. From a resilience perspective livestock is nutrition (milk and meat) and income (sale of livestock to create that flexible, financial buffer)

In order to successfully link crisis interventions with the longer-term potential of resilience-building an additional Theory of Change must be adapted, that of Innovation Adaptation theory (Rogers, 1962) to support the link between the relief phase and the resilience stage.

This theory states that ‘early adopters’ and individuals with peer influence are the first to be targeted to take up modified behaviours and others are encouraged to follow once personal risks have been better evaluated and additional rewards demonstrated. Where needs are identified in the situation or needs analysis that are not directly addressed in the programme/intervention results we must acknowledge either how we will incorporate these needs (e.g. referral to another party, advocacy on key "consequences", etc.) or provide an explicit reason (consistent with our programme/intervention) why we cannot.