C4FC Baseline Report

Community-led Capacity Strengthening for Fragile Contexts (C4FC)

Project Report

BHA Award Number: 720BHA21CA00007

Country / Region: Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan

Project Duration: 24 months, 8 Feb 2021- 7 Feb 2023

Reporting Period: Baseline

World Vision US Contacts: Field Contacts:

Elizabeth Lagrava Stellah Nyagah
Senior Grant & Contract Officer
Washington, DC Senior Project Manager C4FC-SomRep
E-mail: [email protected]
Nairobi, Kenya
Email : [email protected]

Jacob Watson Nishant Das
Program Manager Somali Response Innovation Lab (SomRIL)
Washington, DC Manager
E-mail: [email protected] Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]

World Vision, Inc. is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation, classified under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. It is organized under the laws of the State of California, with headquarters located in Federal
Way, Washington. World Vision has over twenty years of experience in accessing and implementing US
Government, State, and local public sector financial assistance awards. The United States Agency for
International Development is the cognizant Federal agency for World Vision, Inc. regarding the required annual
A133 audit and the US Government Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA). World Vision has been
a registered PVO with USAID since September 30, 1977.

1

BHA List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BOD
BRCiS USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance
CAAP Board of Directors
CBA Building Resilience in Somalia
CBDRM Community Adaptation Action Planning
CBT Community Based Adaptation
CBO Community Based Disaster Risk Management
CCA Community Based Targeting
CDR Community Based Organization
CHS Climate Change Adaptation
CHCF Community Driven Resilience
CIP Core Humanitarian Standards
DFID Core Humanitarian Competency Framework
DRL Capacity Improvement Plan
DRR Department for International Development, Government of UK
DRM Disaster Resilience Leadership
EWEA Disaster Risk Reduction
FGS Disaster Risk Management
FY Early Warning Early Action
GCVCA Federal Government of Somalia
GEF Fiscal Year
GESI Gender, Sensitive Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis
HLA Global Environment Facility
HRP Gender Equality & Social Inclusion
IDFR Humanitarian Leadership Academy
INGO Humanitarian Response Plan
LDCF Institute for Disaster & Fragility Resilience
LNGOs International Non-Governmental Organization
NNGO Least Developed Countries Fund
M&E Local Non-Governmental Organization
NDP National Non-Governmental Organization
NGO Monitoring and Evaluation
NRM National Development Plan
OCA Non-Governmental Organization
OCAT Natural Resource Management
PNP Organizational Capacity Assessment
PMERL Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool
RCAT Public NGO Partnership
SDGs Participatory Monitoring Evaluation Reflection and Learning
SDRI Rapid Capacity Assessment Tool
TOR Sustainable Development Goals
TNA Sadar Development and Resilience Institute
ToT Terms of Reference
USAID Training Needs Assessment
UNDP Training of Trainers
VDC United States Agency for International Development
WV United Nations Development Programme
WVUS Village Development Committees
World Vision
World Vision United States

2

1. Executive Summary

a. Baseline Study Objectives
The objective of the Baseline is two-fold:
(i) On the one hand, it aims at identifying needs and organizational capacity building priorities,
allowing to measure progress of the project against initial and target benchmarks;
(ii) On the other hand, it serves as Training Needs Assessment (TNA) and captures experience and
training levels related to key Community-Driven Resilience (CDR) skill sets to inform the project
curriculum development.
The analysis of the findings also helps to elaborate the relationships between the findings of the

assessments both for organizational development and CDR training needs, aiming to inform on possible
capacity building pathways to support processes that institutionalize training as well as participatory
training modalities of staff in the humanitarian space.

b. Overview of Key Findings
The assessment provided first an overview of hazards, drivers of risks and status of organizational

capacity for CDR in the 3 target countries, identifying capacity issues and opportunities that national and
local non-government organizations (LNGOs) generally face in the project contexts, including CDR
capacities. While each country has its own peculiarities, the Horn of Africa has been experiencing a historic
political conflict, compounded by economic woes and drought, resulting in humanitarian crises with
massive displacement, raging violence and dire food shortages. As a result of the reliance on subsistence
farming, combined with other factors such as the current political crisis decimating livelihood safety nets
and lack of institutional capacity, communities across the 3 countries are also highly vulnerable to climate
variability and change, which impact all economic sectors. A lack of strong, effective institutions, the
proliferation of arms, politicization of ethnicity, and weak property rights are common to the 3 target
countries and continue to drive risk and undermine resilience.

Main common trends and traits that were identified about L/NNGOs across the 3 countries through the
integration of the findings of the Formative Assessment and of the Organizational Capacity
Assessment (OCA) and TNA can be outlined as follows:
● Donor-driven environment, which incentivizes short-term funding, sectoral specialization in the

delivery of humanitarian aid - rather than learning and innovation (the OCA confirmed that most
organizations do not have a sustainable source of funding). Linked to this there is the inability to invest
in permanent staffing and engage in capacity development processes. The common model for
developing capacity by international donors for the last two decades focused on training an
organization’s staff in techniques designed to strengthen internal managerial systems according to donor
requirements and risk environments. This focus on optimizing management systems and practices, not
the impact of their programs and services, has produced disappointing results and is based on a highly
idealized, normative theory that well managed organizations with strong administrative systems are able
to respond consistently to the everyday challenges of projects and life1. In sum, there is the strong need
to change the culture and mindset of the LNGOs to be led by development, sustainability and context-,
evidence-based practice.
● Directly related to the above, there is the value of shifting from transactional to transformative
partnerships, stimulating local organizations in ways that may lead to transformational change and
facilitating true, two-way partnerships. The general lack of follow up by international agencies on
identified capacity development needs means in fact that the capacity assessments merely became a
contracting tool rather than part of a longer-term process to develop a strong civil society.

1 Root Change: New Directions in Local Capacity Development Embracing a Systems Perspective, Nov 2013.

3

This confirms that the co-creation approach embedded by the project is greatly relevant and it could be
a promising way to enable relationships and create a “safe space”, where discussing capacity
strengthening on the basis of the needs and motivations identified by the organizations themselves within
their own context and relationships. Moreover, the assessment scorecard provides baseline values to
assess the level and understanding of program participants with regards to the technical and functional
capacity tools. The scorecard will further outline the capacity strengthening actions and is intended to
increase ownership of the Capacity Improvement Plan (CIP) to be developed jointly with the LNGOs.
Creating a set of indicators that clearly display progressive capacity development may help to provide
markers, which will contribute in time to show the development of the overall localization transition in
the countries.

Below are key findings that represented essential inputs for the curriculum development:
● Lack of an enabling environment with implementation capacity of supportive government authorities

or comprehensive policies and regulations promoting nutrition, food security, productive sectors and
overall resilience.
● Politicization of aid, limited credibility of leadership and weak accountability to communities urge the
need to strengthen LNGOs’ leadership and governance to embed good practices related to
management, accountability, representation, gender and inclusion.
● Gender and inclusion: overall poor understanding and awareness of gender issues - and more
broadly of inclusion - across L/NNGOs management and staff, which is reflected into NGO
organization structures, CDR approaches and work, and eventually quality of delivery.
● Inadequate systems to ensure safeguarding and prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse.
● Inadequate resilience monitoring and learning, and the need to strengthen capacity in data collection
and analysis.
● Limited or no experience at all on skills related to disaster management (particularly re. Early
Warning Systems/EWS), climate change adaptation (particularly re. Community Based
Targeting/CBT and Gender Equality and Social Inclusion/GESI), and limited access to capacity
building training in those areas of work.
Importantly, the assessment confirmed the transversal need across the 3 target countries to formulate
good organizational structures: being flexible and inclusive; and to improve accountability, transparency,
efficiency, and capacity to collaborate with peers and stakeholders, based on the importance of partnerships
and collaboration on resilience, continuing and further reinforcing the practice to turn to grassroots
communities and evaluate themselves and their performance. As such, there is a need to explore more
innovative approaches to enhance comparative advantages for L/NNGOs and value within the humanitarian
system and in funding proposals, avoiding messages of entitlement but strongly demonstrating capacity and
added value (i.e. understanding of local context, language, traditions and culture, access to hard-to-reach
locations and act as first responders, good local ownership and sustainable solutions, flexibility in
responding to changing needs, good relationships with local authorities).

2. Introduction

a. Award Scope and Planned Interventions
Through this award, World Vision (WV), CARE (both Consortium members of SomRep) and Sadar

Development and Resilience Institute (Sadar) seek to work with local NGOs in Somalia, South Sudan and
Sudan to strengthen the capacity of local organizations who are on the frontlines of responding to
humanitarian disasters. The intervention supports individuals (such as civil society leaders and community
change agents), organizations (which include civil society organizations and local learning institutions, and
for-profit businesses), and systems (groups such as communities and national or regional groups of actors

4

working in humanitarian response and responding to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)). The goal of the

project is to improve self-reliance and sustainability for local organizations on the front lines of

providing humanitarian assistance in Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan through organizational

capacity strengthening.

The project has two tracks: the first focuses on the Note about the definition of “resilience”
organizational strength of LNGOs, using standardized tools. in CDR. As each of the 3 target countries
The project will assess the organizational capacity of local is characterized by climate-sensitive
partners, and from this assessment, partners will mentor and agriculture and pastoralism and are
work to strengthen the organizational capacity of local affected by natural disasters linked to
partners to respond to and prepare for crises. SomReP will climate change, project community
carry this out by leveraging its consortium’s strengths and responses to climate change may be

existing partnerships in all three countries to provide viewed as requiring primarily
coordinated capacity strengthening support as well as “resilience” or “adaptation”.

conducting two-way learning processes with LNGOs

throughout the project life cycle. The second track focuses on capacitating LNGOs on CDR. Appreciating

the vast experience that both the consortium and local NGOs have, WV, CARE and Sadar Development

and Resilience Institute (Sadar) work with local NGOs to co-create training needs assessment tools on CDR

as well as a training curriculum contextualized to each country and harmonized to bridge experiences and

best practices ensuring that the curriculum is appropriate to the context. Online learning modules will be

developed concurrently as the offline curriculum, and will be open access for anyone to take from any

country. All these will lead to improved and sustained organizational capacity to anticipate and respond to

disasters, lead in people-centered disaster risk management planning, and implement responses in a

transparent, accountable manner as per humanitarian norms and standards. As a result, there will be

improved self-reliance and sustainability for local organizations on the front lines of providing humanitarian

assistance in Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan.

b. Intervention Locations and Targets
The action will improve the organizational systems of 31 LNGOs (8 in Somalia, 10 in Sudan and 13 in
South Sudan). They were initially selected based on their varying maturity in organizational capacity to
respond to disasters and will therefore benefit from focused capacity building efforts. They were also
chosen based on their geographic footprint, to enable the learning to cascade to a wide geographic reach
and impact.
The capacity building initiatives will directly target 80 frontline humanitarian workers, with a potential
of impacting 67,124 people at risk of disasters, of whom 30,898 (18,284 males and 12,706 females) are
directly reached by the project in the 3 target countries.

3. Methodology

The project embeds a co-creative process to achieve its overall intended goal in its delivery and project
cycle. The main activities are implemented in two approaches and the methodology of the Baseline study
reflects those. As is appropriate to the project design, it was not relevant to conduct a survey using a
probabilistic sample that generates representative and statistically comparable indicator values. The
purpose of the Baseline Study is in fact descriptive and provides benchmarking2.

Baseline and end line values for key outcome indicators were generated via applied capacity assessment
tools:

2 In light of this, WV and BHA agreed to an exemption from the requirement to statistically compare baseline and end
line data.

5

1. For the organizational development capacity building process, the project partners agreed to utilize
WV’s Partner Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT), which allowed them to address key aspects of
institutional capacity. Capacity assessments were carried out using a standard score card-based system
that was contextualized through a joint review process with WV/CARE and target LNGOs. The OCAT’s
approach was intended as a self-assessment tool for organizations to identify gaps and required capacity
building, and to then measure progress against initial or target benchmarks. Based on the scoring, the
organization itself will set priorities for actions aimed to strengthen its capacities as per the identified
needs.

2. For the CDR capacity assessment, the partners have developed a TNA tool to capture experience and
training levels related to key CDR skill sets and to inform the curriculum development. The tools
provided a benchmark for organizational capacity across core technical areas and will be used to inform
the content development of other training activities undertaken throughout the project life cycle. Module
specific knowledge may be additionally captured prior to a participant’s interaction with the module.
For this reason, the baseline for specific aspects of the CDR training modules that are being developed
will continue to be collected and analyzed at various stages through a rolling baseline.

While the tools for the OCA and TNA were being respectively finalized and piloted, in the period
August-September 2021 a Formative Assessment was carried out in the form of a desk review. This
assessment aimed to better understand and contextualize the capacity landscape and the findings of the
OCA and TNA process, supporting to better understand the values of the selected key outcome indicators
that will be produced throughout the project implementation.

a. Data Collection
Below are the outcome indicators that are assessed and contextualized through the baseline and end line

process:
● C1: Percentage of participants demonstrating increased knowledge related to organizational capacity
● C2: Percent of trained program staff who felt that the CDR training equipped them with skills and
tools to support communities to anticipate shocks and plan resilience interventions
● C3: Number of L/NNGOs with a 20% increase in the capacity scorecard
● C9: % of organizations that have adopted the CDR approach to inform the design and implementation
of resilience interventions with at risk communities
● C10: % of organizations that have adopted the institutional training as delivered by the project to
inform the design, implementation and resource management of resilience interventions for at-risk
communities.

The other outcome indicators below measure outputs of activities newly implemented by the project,
which therefore have a baseline value of zero:

● C4: Number of capacity strengthening plans highlighting respective gaps and contributions of both
partners, recognizing complementarity

● C5: % of capacity strengthening action plans that include a variety of methodologies (e.g. on-the-job
coaching and mentorship, co-located working, job exchanges, secondments, access to eLearning in
addition to training and workshops) and focus on learning by doing

● C6: Percentage of Organizational capacity improvement plans developed and validated by I and
L/NGOs implemented

● C7: Number of Households in target villages sensitized on risk assessment and priority
● preparedness activities based on the CDR approach
● C8: Number of people in target villages sensitized on risk assessment and priority.

6

These indicators are not included in the baseline and end line studies, but instead values will be updated
during project implementation, mainly through routine monitoring. Appreciating that this is a co-creative
intervention where participatory approaches are applied also in the design of the tools, questions are inbuilt
into the tools as progress on intermediate changes are made and outcomes are captured. These will
eventually be evaluated at community, institutional and individual level as part of the end of project
evaluation, also referred to as the end line study.

The full list of project indicators was provided as Annex A along with the Formative Assessment
Report.

a. Data Sources
The OCAs and TNAs used primary data collected among direct participants of the intervention (namely

Directors and Trainees, Staff of the LNGOs) as following:
● OCA: all 31 target organizations carried out the assessment (8 target organizations in Somalia; 13
organizations in South Sudan and 10 organizations in Sudan). The OCAs in Sudan were initially
postponed due to the crisis in country and were carried out at a later stage in January 2022.
● TNA: data were collected up to 5th November 2021 from all organizations across the 3 target
countries. The TNA targeted 4-5 respondents per organization, among Directors, Director-level of
staff and future Trainees.

Primary data sources include also reports from previous onsite capacity assessments carried out by
WV/CARE with 23 participating organizations (defined as civil society organizations and LNGOs) to
preliminary assess relevance and feasibility of the partnership: 2 carried out by CARE in Somalia, using
OCAT-1; 11 carried out by WV in South Sudan using Rapid Partner Assessment/OCAT and Due Diligence
Reports in South Sudan; 10 carried out by WV in Sudan using Rapid Partner Assessment/OCAT and Due
Diligence Reports.

For the Formative Assessment, a vast number of secondary data sources as well as sectoral reports were
collected and analyzed to understand the overall capacity landscape.

b. Collection Techniques and Analysis
Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool (OCAT). The Organizational Capacity Building

curriculum involves a 3-stage iterative process, starting with the OCA, followed by a blended learning
approach based on the assessment results, and complemented with supervision, follow up, and evaluations.
This blended learning approach allows WV/CARE to work closely with organizations through mentorship,
trouble-shooting, and varied implementation support to build a sense of resilience essential for long-term
sustainability.

The OCAT provides a structured mechanism to identify partners’ capabilities and gaps to achieve their
vision and mission. Through the tool, WV/CARE seek to understand the readiness of community level
organizations in advancing sustainable community transformation. The self-assessment tool and process
seeks to: i. empower and strengthen these community institutions as potential partners to succeed in their
mission; and ii. create spaces to enable the partners identify ‘power within’ as partners which could inspire
them to make the changes that they want. On the other hand, the tool will also enable WV/CARE to learn
how to work more effectively with local partnerships towards the common agenda in the community.

This is part of a process that seeks to assess the capacity of any organization across 9 dimensions of
Organizational Capability (refer to the table below) and identify areas for further development.

Depending on the overall capacity level for the partner, WV/CARE facilitate a joint discussion with the
LNGOs on steps for them to seek support and any risk mitigation approaches that need to be put in place

7

as the partners capacity evolves. This process should be for the whole organization, not just the USAID-
funded project.

The OCAs have been administered and facilitated by the WV/CARE project teams in each country of
implementation using the OCAT. Group sessions have been facilitated with 4-5 representatives from each
LNGO (including the Director and staff with different roles), by introducing each dimension and each of
the respective 25 indicators as per the summary below, and assigning scores against benchmarks as
considered appropriate by the group3:

Partnership Indicator Indicators
Dimensions of Types
Organizational #1. Does the organization have a plan and/or strategy for what programs
Strategic will be implemented over the next 12 months, which includes the mission
Capacity Mission and and vision of the organization?
Identity and Vision #2. Does the organization have a Senior Management Team (SMT) /
constituency Board/Senior Executive Committee or Board with decision making roles? How often
Management does it meet? This is evidenced by well documented meetings held in
Governance accordance with Constitution/Board/Governing body Manual
and leadership Financial #3. Does the organization have a written financial policy that is shared and
Policy followed by all relevant staff members? Does the policy give guidance on
Strategy, key pillars of financial management such as internal controls, record
structure and Expenditure keeping, planning (budgets) and monitoring (financial reports)
systems Management #4. Does the organization have a procedure that ensures payments for
expenditure are paid on presentation of the relevant payment voucher or
Cash, Bank and supporting document? Are the supporting documents ‘stamped as paid’ or
Treasury is there use of unique identifiers to avoid duplication of payments? Is there
Management a procedure that ensures that all expenditure is entered into a financial
management system? Is there a procedure to prevent grantors’ funds from
Overall HR being used for expenditure outside of the grant conditions
Policies and #5. Does the organization have a petty cash system that defines the limit
Procedures on the amount of petty cash that can be kept? Does the organization keep
Salary scale the cash in a secure safe with access control? Is there an authorisation
process for the opening of, or closing and making amendments of bank
Payroll accounts? Are there at least two signatories to make a payment? Is a
Procurement monthly bank reconciliation completed and signed off by senior
Policies management?
#6. Confirm that the organization has and follows HR policies, procedures
Fixed Assets and practices.

#7. Does the organization have clear grading and salary scales? And how
is it applied?
#8. Does the organization properly record and authorize payroll?

#9. Is there written Procurement policy/guideline/manual that takes into
account transparency and fairness in process and includes competitive
bidding from a certain threshold?
#10. Does the organisation have a fixed asset policy, which includes
capitalization threshold, useful economic life, depreciation and disposal?

3 Refer to section below e. Data Collection Assurance.

8

Managing our Records Verify that assets are safeguarded and controlled with a fixed asset register
resources Retention and asset movement forms. Please provide a copy of the asset list. The
Shaping our organisation labels and/or tag all assets such that it can be reconciled to
work Security Policy written records.
#11. Does the organization have a filing system for all donors and projects,
Implementing Sustainability which are readily available?
and learning How safe is the filing system? Do they store documents for at least for 7
from our work M&E years?
Plan/M&E #12. Formal Security Policy or Security Manual exists and is available to
Participation Framework all employees (English and local language).
and protection
in our work Feedback #13. If/when donor support ends, how are the projects managed? How is
Mechanism continuing in funding/ sustainability for that project ensured?
Working with
partners Project #14. Is there a documented M&E plan that includes output and outcome
Implementation indicators, data collection tools and methods for sharing and using data? is
Relationship plans there an electronic database and management reporting systems exist in
within external Risk most areas for tracking beneficiaries, volunteers, program outcomes and
environment Assessment financial information. The system is commonly used and helps increase
Learning information sharing and efficiency
#15. Is there any mechanism to receive complaints and feedback from
Targeting beneficiaries? If yes, how? Are there documented guidance/ policies that
outline complaint handling procedure? Does the organization share
Beneficiary information with beneficiaries on the following i) project information ii)
participation rights and entitlements including staff behavior
#16. How does the organization ensure that projects are implemented in
Government accordance with project plans?
Engagement
#17. Is a risk assessment conducted for each project and periodically
Collaboration evaluated based on changes in the context?
& networking
with other #18. How does the program document lessons learn? Are examples of
partners lessons learnt developed into learning documents?
Communication
s Policy #19. How does the organization target beneficiaries? Does it use a specific
beneficiary targeting criteria/selection criteria and scoring methodologies?
Formal Consent If yes, what is it?
#20. How do you consult with the beneficiaries/members about decisions
that will affect them on the design and implementation of the project? And
when do you do this?
#21. How does the organization coordinate with other organizations and
local government? Can the organization name which other organizations
are working in their areas of operation?
#22. Cooperation and collaboration with stakeholders Describe relations
with current and previous stakeholders

#23. Does the organization have a communication and/or social media
policy that ensures all communications work is consistent and in line with
humanitarian principles, that all staff are aware of and follow?

#24. Does this policy require signed consent forms? If so, where/how are
these forms stored?

9

Beneficiary #25. Does the organization share media and external communications that
protection compromise the safety or dignity of beneficiaries or staff?

The sessions were conducted in plenary, with key management and staff discussing all capacity
dimensions and indicators, and engaging with senior managers and key professionals to provide their inputs
outside their individual areas of responsibility. The facilitation aimed to ensure inclusive participation of
representatives from various levels within the organization.

The assessment scorecard provides baseline values to assess the level and understanding of program
participants with regards to the technical and functional capacity tools. The scorecard will further outline
the capacity strengthening actions and is intended to increase ownership of the Capacity Improvement Plan
(CIP) to be developed jointly by the LNGOs and the project team.

Training Needs Assessment (TNA). The TNA has been carried out online by using Google forms to
gather individual answers from respondents of each target organization. The forms were organized around
two different sets of questions as relevant to the role of the respondents (i.e. Directors form and Trainees
form, refer to Annex B) and aimed at gathering information about the skills and training levels at
organizational and individual related to carrying out CDR activities. The tool also collected information
about areas that the respondent would like to have more training and hands-on experience in relation to
Community Development Resilience (CDR), Community Based Targeting (CBT), Gender-Sensitive
Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis (GCVCA), Community Based Disaster Risks Management
(CBDRM) and Early Warning Systems (EWS), as per summarized below:

Organizational Individual Level
Level (Directors)
(Trainees)
1. How many
years’ experience 2. Have you had 3. How many years of 4. Which of these 5. Which of these
training related to skills do you think
does your using these skills? experience do you skills do you think
organization have you need more
using these skills? have used these you need more hands-on experience

skills? training in? in?

The forms had been introduced beforehand to the management/Directors and staff who would undertake
the training, on which occasion terminologies around CDR as used in the forms have been discussed and
clarified. These introductory sessions were used as piloting sessions as the LNGOs and the future trainees
had the chance to familiarize themselves with the CDR topics, share their views and provide their inputs.
Responses and data have been recorded and administered through the online link, and analyzed by using
cross-tabulation, assigning meaning to the collected information and determining the conclusions,
significance, and implications of the findings during a few consultative sessions carried out by WV/CARE
and Sadar.

c. Data Collection Assurance, Data Protection and Security
The project M&E team ensured that primary data collection was conducted with scientific rigor and best

practice (for instance, validated tools were used for both OCA and TNA data collection, and all data
collectors were trained adequately in data collection procedures). The M&E team was responsible to verify
the data with target individuals from LNGOs to ensure that there was manipulation and to reduce any errors.

During the implementation, the M&E team will ensure that the indicators are measured with the same
tool and from the same source across different locations, in line with BHA standard templates and tools.
The use of a mobile data collection system, short and simple data collection tools, and training of all project
staff involved in data collection will help minimize data errors.

10

As per detailed in the project M&E Plan, WV/CARE ensure and safeguard beneficiary confidentiality
and protect personally identifiable information, both of hardcopy and digital files. Original hardcopy data
files and project records are stored in a secured and protected place with access control. The hardcopy data
files will be preserved after 5 years of project closing. The project relies on standard data management and
safeguard systems that include access control, backup system, version control, virus protection and other
security measures. All M&E staff and enumerators are trained in data ethics, including informed consent,
data management and security, and processes for maintaining privacy and confidentiality.

d. Timeline of Baseline Data Collection
As mentioned above, data are collected on a rolling basis aligned with the timing of the different cohorts

in each country. The timing of the OCA and TNA occurred as follows:

Baseline cohorts Timing
Formative Assessment FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
Cohort 1 Somalia FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
OCA FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
TNA (tool development, pilot and roll-out) FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
Cohort 2 Sudan
OCA FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q2 (Jan)
TNA (tool development, pilot and roll-out) FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
Cohort 3 South Sudan
OCA FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)
TNA (tool development, pilot and roll-out) FY21 Q4 (Aug-Sept) and FY22 Q1 (Oct)

e. Limitations and Mitigating Measures
1. Covid-19: Due to the unpredictable changes in Covid-19 cases and subsequent risk of community

transmission in group-based interventions and activities it was difficult to organize OCA group sessions
at LNGOs’ main offices either due to restricted movements due to targeted lock-down or to maintain
social distancing. WV/CARE therefore limited the number of each group to 4–5 participants to ensure
opportunity for all participants to have their say, to remain engaged, and to reduce strain on the
moderators. WV/CARE staff ensured that face masks and PPE were available and social distancing
requirements put in place in all meeting venues. More effort was placed to make sure the right profiles
and samples (mainstream vs extremes) were engaged in the processes. Alternative mechanisms for data
collection and reporting were also employed (i.e. the TNA was carried out fully online).
2. Low literacy levels and poor-quality data due to inadequate understanding of tools and questions
therein were identified as a threat to carry out the OCA, and to address it the sessions were facilitated
by trained interviewers who presented definitions, questions and type of expected responses. Throughout
both OCA and TNA processes, probing techniques were applied (i.e. consistency, completeness,
wording, interviewer instructions, logic tests, filtering, and rotation or randomization techniques
checked). Importantly, as an essential part of the co-creative approach, tool designs were co-created with
LNGO staff and piloted with enumerators from the locality to test context appropriateness of the
questions being asked.
3. OCA data entries: in a few cases, some indicators were not assessed by providing a % in the OCATs
in South Sudan, which resulted in a margin of error, even if low, of the final baseline scores of the
LNGOs in the country.
4. On the other hand, from the analysis of the data received, it appears that the compilation of the OCATs
for the LNGOs in Somalia was less detailed than the ones in South Sudan and Sudan (i.e. limited
elaboration of the noted gaps and related risks in the summary). It is acknowledged that discrepancies
in the compilation are expected due to differences among country local contexts and to different teams’

11

facilitation styles and approaches. Although this does not seem to have affected the reliability of the
assessments in Somalia and the data analysis as such, it will be needed to ensure that the support
provided to the LNGOs in Somalia to develop the Capacity Improvement Plans elaborates and fully
covers all required elements.
5. TNA data entries: 2 Directors’ data were not entered (one from Somalia and one from South Sudan).
Moreover, the TNA analysis herewith provided represents an initial analysis, which will continue to be
deepened throughout the co-production training process itself in each country.

Findings of the Baseline Study

a. Organizational Capacity Assessment
Baseline values have been updated as organizations carried out the assessment and scorecards became

available. The scorecards were calculated on the basis of this Capacity Assessment Rating Scale:

1. Starting: 0-24% No information, Key deficiencies, significant
2. Emerging: 25-44% weaknesses, not remediable before award, high risk

Some deficiencies, significant weaknesses, not easily
remediable before award, moderate to high risk

3. Growing: 45-74% No deficiencies, some significant weaknesses,
remediable before award, low to moderate risk

4. Maturing: 75-100% No deficiencies, no significant weaknesses, low risk

It is important to stress that in light of the project scope and co-creation approach, the OCA scores are
only a reference for baseline purposes and a means to identify priority areas for capacity strengthening. The
methodological focus remains however on the process of discussing the organizations’ needs, gaps, action
planning and motivations within their own context and relationships.

Below are the main findings of the OCA in each country. Notably, the findings describe a project
scenario confirming the context set through the Formative Assessment, where each country offers its own
unique features and differences in the stage of the organizational capacity development of the selected
LNGOs.

Somalia:
● Scorecards / Baseline values for Indicator C3, Number of LNGOs with a 20% increase in the

capacity scorecard. The table below presents the scorecards for all organizations:

12

7 organizations out of target 8 scored higher than 75%, in 4 cases even higher than 90%, meaning that
almost all target organizations in the country are in Maturing stage under most indicators have no
deficiencies, no significant weaknesses, and present low risk. Only 1 organization is in Growing stage,
as represented by the graphs below:

Somalia - Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values

93.0% 93.0% 96.0% 95.0%

88.0% 82.7%

81.0%

Scorecards 74.0%

123456789
Organizations

13

Somalia: Radar Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values
1

82

73

64

5

This finding describes a quite homogeneous and advanced scenario of organizations to work with in
the country, confirming the preliminary assumptions during the project formulation and the findings of
the Formative assessment. While on the one hand, this data may raise questions about the initial targeting
and selection of organizations in the country and the limited scope for further organizational
development (see findings below), it may also represent an opportunity to develop the project approach
of cross-learning among organizations and countries, where Somali organizations may play a leading
role in many organizational capacity dimensions.

Indicator C3 may need to be re-assessed by reflecting the baseline values/scorecards of the
organizations in the country, for most of which the target of 20% increase is not relevant/possible.

● Dimension of Relationship within external environment: 3 organizations out of 8 identified gaps (2
assessing this as a high risk and 1 presenting significant deficiencies). The gaps are that no media
communication policy documents are available, and no consent letters are systematically used. It would
be interesting during the planning sessions to look deeper into the relationship with the communities of
the LNGOs’ respective environment and understand areas of work in the relationships and dynamics
with them.

● Dimension of Managing own resources: 3 organizations identify gaps, assessing sustainability of
funds at high risk and identifying the absence of fundraising strategies or business plans in place and of
approaches to unsolicited funds as actual gaps. This data suggests the need to review the Training
module on grants to ensure that items related to fundraising strategy and approaches are included as
needed.

● Dimension of Shaping own Work (M&E and Feedback mechanism): 1 organization identified gaps,
assessing this as a high risk.

● Dimension of Participation and Protection: despite the very high scores given to it, it was observed
that the assessment would benefit from a more thorough discussion about actual safeguarding. It is then
highly recommended to incorporate it as part of the action planning for the Capacity Improvement Plan
as being a precondition for working in the communities.

The graph below presents an overview of the average scoring of the 9 organizational capacity
dimensions assessed:

14

Somalia - Dimensions’ average scoring

90% 96.80% 91.80% 88.50% 96.80% 96.80%
79.70%
68.70% 68.70%

South Sudan:
● Scorecard / Baseline values for Indicator C3, Number of LNGOs with a 20% increase in the

capacity scorecards. The table below presents the scorecards for all organizations:

6 organizations out of 13 scored between 25 and 44%, meaning that almost half of the target
organizations in the country are in the Emerging stage, with most indicators showing some deficiencies,
significant weaknesses, and presenting moderate to high risk. 2 organizations scored below 24%,
meaning that they are in the Starting stage presenting high risk. Only 1 organization scored over 75%
and is in the Maturing stage, presenting no risk. Finally, 4 organizations scored between 45 and 74%,
being in the Growing stage. This data describes a scenario in the country where partner LNGOs need to
undertake important capacity development work at organizational level.

15

South Sudan - Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values

72.2%

58.0% 55.0% 51.0%
52.0%
Scorecards 46.0%
44.0% 45.0% 46.6%
41.0% 41.0%
31.0%

25.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Organizations

South Sudan - Radar Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values
1

13 2

12 3

11 4

10 5

9 6
8 7

● Dimension of Managing own resources: 12 organizations identified gaps, assessing sustainability of
funds at high risk and identifying the absence of fundraising strategies or business plans in place and of
approaches to unsolicited funds as actual gaps. As reported for Somalia, this data suggests the need to
review the content of the Training module on grants to ensure that items related to fundraising strategy
and approaches are included as needed.

● Dimension of Relationship within external environment: 12 organizations identified External relations
at high risk, with the lowest % among all indicators for 1 organization. Similarly to what reported for
Somalia, the absence of communication guidelines/strategy, and no consent form/guidelines

16

systematically in use were identified as gaps. It would be also interesting during the planning sessions
to look deeper into the relationship with the communities of the LNGOs’ respective environment and
understand areas of work in the relationships and dynamics with them.
● Dimension of Shaping our work (M&E and Feedback mechanism): 12 organizations identified it at
high risk: no M&E Framework across projects, no M&E plans or not operationalized, no feedback
mechanism/accountability.
● Dimension of Implementation and learning: 11 organizations identified it at high risk, mostly due to
neither risk framework nor tools and systems for capturing lessons being in place.
● Dimension of Participation and protection: 10 organizations identified it at high risk, mostly due to
no structured community engagement and participation approach and no protection of beneficiary data
stipulated. Generally, the compliance process is not in place either. As per Somalia, it was observed that
the assessment would benefit from a more thorough discussion about actual safeguarding. It is then
highly recommended to incorporate it as part of the action planning for the Capacity Improvement Plan
as being a precondition for working in the communities.
● Dimension of Strategy systems and structure: these dimensions got mostly low scores, with 6
organizations assessing it at high risk and 6 organizations assessing at moderate/high risk. Gaps
identified are varied and specific to each organization, going from issues related to finance procedures,
payroll, salary scale, gender and diversity in HR, accounting practices, etc.
● Dimension of Governance and leadership is the dimension with the most polarized ratings: on the one
hand, 8 orgs assessed it at high risk (below 25%), and on the other hand, 5 organizations assessed it not
to be at risk (higher than 75%). Gaps were found re. the Board of Directors (BOD), which doesn’t have
clear leadership structure/functions (at times, the governance is referred to as “one man-show”); the
constitution is not regularly updated; gender and diversity are not reflected in the constitution.

South Sudan - Radar Representation of Dimension “Governance and leadership”

1

13 2

12 3

11 4

10 5

9 6
8 7

● Dimension of Working with Partners: this dimension is the one with the highest scores, with 7
organizations assessing it over 75%. Only 2 organizations assessed it at high risk, reporting to have no
experience in working with the Government and donor in general.

17

● Dimension of Identity and constituency: together with Working with Partners, it’s the dimension with
the highest scores across the organizations, with 7 orgs assessing it between 45-74% and 4 organizations
assessing it over 75%. Only 1 organization assessed it at high risk.

In sum, almost all target organizations in the country assessed high risk and identified key deficiencies
in the dimensions of sustainability of funds, external relations, implementation and learning, participation
and protection and M&E and accountability, strategy systems and structure.

The graph below presents an overview of the average scoring of the 9 organizational capacity
dimensions assessed:

South Sudan - Dimensions’ average scoring

57% 55.50% 52% 60%

34.30% 38% 44.20% 42.10% 30%

Sudan:
● Scorecard / Baseline values for Indicator C3, Number of LNGOs with a 20% increase in the

capacity scorecards. The table below presents the baseline scorecards for each organization:

SUDAN AORD ALSHROOQ ALSWSID ALTAKAMOL ASSIST GFO JASMAR NAHA NIDO VET-CARE Average
A. Identity & Constituency 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 80.0%
B. Governance and Leadership 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 100.0% 75.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.0%
C. Strategy Systems & Structure 62.5% 65.0% 67.5% 75.0% 72.5% 77.5% 95.0% 75.0%
D. Managing Our Resources 25.0% 75.0% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 50.0% 75.0% 50.0% 55.0%
E. Shaping Our Work 37.5% 50.0% 62.5% 62.5% 62.5% 87.5% 100.0% 66.3%
F. Implementation and Learning 33.3% 85.0% 77.5% 72.5% 66.7% 58.3% 75.0% 66.7% 66.7% 75.0% 62.5%
G. Participation & Protection 37.5% 87.5% 87.5% 87.5% 62.5% 62.5% 100.0% 75.0%
H. Working with Partners 87.5% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 87.5% 87.5% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 91.2%
I. External Relations 83.3% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 58.3% 50.0% 68.3%
Total 59.0% 62.5% 75.0% 62.5% 70.0% 69.0% 76.0% 73.0% 76.0% 87.0%
Growing Growing Growing Maturing Growing Maturing Maturing
66.7% 66.7% 50.0%

62.5% 87.5% 75.0%

87.5% 87.5% 87.5%

91.7% 75.0% 58.3%

78.0% 76.0% 67.0%

Maturing Maturing Emerging

18

5 organizations out of targeted 10 (thus half of them) scored higher than 75% and are in a Maturing
stage, presenting overall no significant weakness and low risk at organizational level. No organization
scored below 24%, meaning there are no organizations in a Starting stage presenting significant deficiencies
and overall high risk. The other 5 organizations are in either Growing or Emerging stages, presenting some
significant weaknesses and deficiencies, low to moderate and moderate to high risk respectively.

This data describes a varied scenario of organizations to work with in the country. While on the one
hand, target organizations may not need to work on mitigating major risks at organizational level, on the
other hand the scenario offers scope and margins for significant improvement on the different dimension
of capacity development.

Sudan - Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values

Sudan - Radar Overview of Scorecards / Baseline values

19

• Dimension of Identity and Constituency: All 10 organizations scored very high in this dimension
(with 2 organizations scoring 100%), meaning that strategy and mission are strong assets across the
organizations. In some cases, yet it was found that the strategic plan needs to be broken into 12-month
basis to further strengthen its operationalization.

• Dimension of Working with Partners: This is the other dimension which scored the highest across all
10 organizations and representing the strongest asset across all organizational capacity dimensions, with
all scores higher than 85.5% and even 3 organizations scoring 100%. Data show that organizations are
well connected and actively engaged with local authorities, other organizations and donors (cluster
meetings etc.).

• Dimension of Governance and Leadership: This dimension scored higher than 75% in 9 out of 10
cases (with 5 organization - half of all of the ones in the country - even scoring the max 100%),
representing another asset of the capacity development process. In 1 exception it was assessed a degree
of risk due to the fact that BOD/SMT meetings are not held and documented regularly.

• Dimension of Managing our Resources: This is the dimension that overall scored the lowest across
the organizations in Sudan and the lowest score among all dimensions in each OCA (25%), presenting
a varied scenario where half of the organizations assessed weaknesses and risks. The most reported
issues are the absence of (or inadequate) resource mobilization strategy and the absence of technical
staff in charge of it.

• Dimension of Implementation and Learning: This is the second dimension that scored the lowest in
the country, presenting a varied scenario with 2 organizations assessing high risks and 6 organizations
assessing moderate risk. Most reported issues relate to the need to reinforce the use of tools and systems
on planning the activity implementation and documenting the experience/lessons.

• Dimension of Participation and Protection: Overall the scores across the organizations are high, with
an average of 75%. However, important weaknesses were identified for action, mostly related to the
absence of beneficiary selection criteria, feedback and compliant mechanism. It is recommended to
incorporate Safeguarding mechanisms as part of the action planning as it is an essential component of
organizational capacity, especially in humanitarian context.

• Dimension of Strategy Systems and Structure: Overall this dimension scored reassuring % across the
10 organizations, with an average 75%. The scenario of the issues that present weaknesses and risks is
vary and goes from the need of reinforcing key policies (on security, finance and procurement) to the
need of strengthening the systems on asset management and HR management.

• Dimension of Shaping our Work (M&E and Feedback mechanism): This dimension presents a
heterogeneous situation across the organizations and varied scores. Overall it was assessed the absence
of a M&E system in place and no regular use of related M&E tools.

• Dimension of External Relations: Even this dimension presents a heterogeneous scenario across the
different organizations, with common weakness identified in the absence of a communication policy
and guidelines framing the external communications.

The graph below presents an overview of the average scoring of the 10 organizational capacity
dimensions assessed:

20

b. Training Need Assessment
First of all, it’s important to highlight that on the one hand, the scope and methodology of the TNA

within the context of the baseline is not based on a piece of work and bulk of experiences that are established
at WV/CARE organizational level like it is the OCA process (refer to section 3. Methodology). On the
other hand, the findings of the TNA are not intended to provide baseline benchmarking, but to capture
experience and training levels related to key CDR skill sets to inform the curriculum development.

It is also important to point out that some skill sets which have been assessed through the TNA are more
essential requirements of positions and roles, and won't be addressed by the project training modules as
such; in general, they shall be considered as references for job profiles and staff recruitment.

The Formative study mapped capacity assessment tools developed by WV/CARE and other organization
in the region, outlining that the “resilience assessment tools'' in use aim at addressing multiple dimensions
of CDR, accounting for cross-scale relationships, capturing temporal dynamism, reflecting uncertainties,
employing participatory approaches, and developing community action plans. However, results from
several project evaluations, assessments and studies show that limited success has been achieved in
addressing all these dimensions and criteria. In terms of comprehensiveness, the environmental dimension
has received relatively less attention despite its significance for building community resilience. It is found
that more attention to employing iterative processes that involve scenario-based planning is needed to better
address challenges associated with uncertainties. Importantly, the scope of the CDR change process linked
to the assessments and mapping has been reported as directly proportional to the participatory approaches
being used and/or the breadth of the consultation activities carried out at community level. The TNA
questionnaires integrated these critical dimensions (i.e. under the questions related to CBT-related skill set).

Below are main findings of the TNA for each of the respondents’ groups. Although not always presented
in this report, data for Somalia and Somaliland were disaggregated in order to reflect the differences of
contextual factors and better inform CDR curriculum and toolkit development to address country context-
specific hazards which render households and communities less resilient.

21

● The target LNGOs themselves selected the Director-level staff and Trainees who participated to the
assessment, therefore the final number of the respondents varied across organizations and countries, as
outlined below:

Director-level Orgs Males Females Average
age
Country 10 14 1 46.2
3 2 2 38.75
Sudan 4 3 1 52
Somaliland 12 7 5 38.3
Somalia 29 26 9 43.81
South Sudan
TOTAL

Trainees Orgs Males Females Average
age
Country 7 12 3 39.26
3 5 8 35.56
Sudan 4 8 4 34.56
Somaliland 13 28 11 35.28
Somalia 27 53 26 36.17
South Sudan
TOTAL

● Disaggregation by sex. The disaggregation by sex of the respondents shows a marked imbalance

between male and female staff to the disadvantage of female staff, apart for the exception of Somaliland.
It would be interesting to understand whether these figures reflect the LNGOs’ staff composition and

the gaps that emerged from the OCA about constitutions and HR policies not addressing gender and
inclusion; or if it’s due to the selection of the respondents that was made (in which case, by whom and

according to which criteria) to represent the organizations at the survey.

Director-level respondents by sex

30
25
20
15
10

5
0

Sudan Somaliland Somalia South Sudan TOTAL

Males Females

22

Trainee respondents by sex

60
50
40
30
20
10

0
Sudan Somaliland Somalia South Sudan TOTAL

Males Females

● Preference of type of training. As shown by the summary below, neither Directors nor Trainees express
a very marked preference about a type of training, with the slightly most preferred one across countries
being the online/virtual type and the less preferred ones being the classroom set up and one-on-one.
LNGOs in South Sudan do not express a preference at all among all types, while organizations in Sudan
prefer the online/virtual and the ones in Somalia the in-person training.

Training type preference by Directors/orgs

In-Person Somalia/ Sudan South Total
Somaliland 3 Sudan 17
Online/Virtual 6 19
Classroom 4 3 10 15
Setup 3 4 10 15
One-on-One
2 10

1 10

Training type preference by Trainees

In-person Somalia/ Sudan South Total
Online/Virtual Somaliland 5 Sudan 49
Classroom 8 58
Setup 7 10 37 57
One-on-one 14 5 36 48

13 34

8 35

● From the Directors-level data entries, the table and the graph below show the summary of the total
percentage for all countries related to years of experience of the organizations on a selected list of
skill sets:

23

Selected skill sets 0 years 1-2 3-5 Over 5
13% years years years
SK 2: System thinking 10% 13% 33% 20%
6% 33% 37% 21%
SK3: Carry out full project management cycle, operational 10% 13% 43% 33%
planning 13% 40% 37%
SK4: Create and Train Strong Teams 27%
SK5: Community Entry, Mobilization, Participatory 33% 30% 10%
community engagement 33%
SK14: Analyse vulnerability to climate change including 7% 23% 30% 13%
gender dimensions and other differential factors (e.g., age, 10% 13% 47% 33%
ethnicity, caste and marital status) 17% 20% 60% 6%
SK15: Analyse adaptive capacities related to climate change 23% 27% 37% 20%
including gender dimensions 37% 37% 13%
SK17: Local Government Engagement
SK20: Ensure participation, agency, transparency and
inclusion of all groups
SK26: Scenario planning

SK22: Create, collect, and analyse Gender Equality and
Social Inclusion (GESI) responsive indicators

Organizations’ experience on skill sets

70%
60%

60%

50% 37% 43% 403%7% 47%
40%
30% 33% 33% 33% 273%33%0% 33% 30% 33% 37% 373%7%
20%
10% 27%
23% 20% 17% 20%23%
20% 21%

131%3% 10% 13% 101%3% 10% 13% 13% 10% 13%
6% 7% 6%

0%

0 years 1-2 years 3-5 years Over 5 yrs

24

● Data show that most organizations across the target countries have an experience of 3-5 years in most
skills, with a peak of 60% in SK20 “Participation and inclusion of all groups”, which is the skill with

the highest % of highest experience among all skills.
● The skill with the highest % of experience over 5 years is SK5 “Community entry, mobilization,

participatory community engagement”.

● On the other hand, most organizations across the countries show they do not rate their experience equal

to 0 years for any of the skills (the lowest % among the different years of experience's options), with
the highest % of 0 years assessed in SK15 “Analyse adaptive capacities related to climate change,
including gender”, followed by SK14 “Analyse vulnerability to climate change including gender
dimensions”.

● The organizations in Sudan show the highest % of skills with over 5 years of experience, i.e. related to
SK2 “System thinking” (13%), SK4 “Create and train strong teams” (23%), SK17 “Local government
engagement” (20%) and SK26 “Scenario planning” (17%).

● The organizations in South Sudan show the highest % of skills with 0 years of experience, i.e. related
to SK14 “Analyse vulnerability, including gender” (17%), SK15 “Analyse adaptive capacities,
including gender” (17%), SK26 “Scenario planning” (10%) and SK22 “GESI” (10%). This is also seen

at Trainee level, i.e. South Sudan seems to have the greatest number of staff reporting no experience.

● When doing cross-tabulation between Directors and Trainees, it is important to point out that at the

organization level the Directors may report skills (i.e. Scenario planning) at a good level of experience,

while at individual/Trainee level, half of them say that they have 0 years of experience in the same area.

This could mean on the one hand that the organizations have chosen the right Trainees that need

exposure to these skill sets, and on the other hand it could also mean that these staff members will

benefit from the organizational skill - however that is not a given that staff will automatically learn from

the others in the organization.

● From the Trainees data entries, the table and the graph below show the summary of the total percentage
for all countries related to trainees’ years of experience on a selected list of skill sets:

Selected skill sets 0 years 1-2 years 3-5 Over 5
13% 33% years years
SK5: Community Entry, Mobilization, Participatory 16%
community engagement 37%
SK14: Analyse vulnerability to climate change including 6%
gender dimensions and other differential factors (e.g., age, 61% 16% 11%
ethnicity, caste and marital status) 6%
SK15: Analyse adaptive capacities related to climate change 62% 19% 6% 16%
including gender dimensions 22% 22% 39% 10%
SK17: Local Government Engagement 22% 34% 29%
SK20: Ensure participation, agency, transparency and 6%
inclusion of all groups 38% 33% 19% 6%
SK22: Create, collect, and analyse Gender Equality and 49% 22% 18% 0%
Social Inclusion (GESI) responsive indicators 30% 13% 1% 0%
33% 13% 0% 0%
SK26: Scenario planning 32% 9% 5%

CBT2: Conduct community-based targeting (CBT)

CBT3: Define intervention(s) for targeting: activity type,
transfer modality, etc. and eligibility criteria

CBT6: Developing profiles of vulnerable groups

25

EWS2: Utilize early warning systems (EWS) to help 38% 6% 3% 0%
communities make decisions related to disaster management

EWS3: Provide capacity development for early warning for 38% 6% 3% 0%
climate risks

EWS4: Design EWS that fit local context 35% 8% 0% 0%

EWS5: Lead in a community based EWS 42% 4% 1% 0%

Trainees’ experience on skill sets

70% 61% 62%

60%

50% 49%

40% 37% 39% 38% 42%
33% 34% 33% 30% 33% 32% 38% 38% 35%
29%
30%
20% 13%16% 16% 19% 222%% 22% 19% 22%
10% 11% 16% 18%
10% 13% 13%
9% 8%
6% 66%% 6% 6% 10%% 00%% 5% 63%0%% 63%0%% 00%% 41%0%%
0%

0%

0 years 1-2 years 3-5 years Over 5 yrs

● Most trainees across the 3 countries report 0 years of experience in most areas, with peaks of 61% on
SK14 “Analyse vulnerability to climate change including gender dimensions and other differential
factors (e.g., age, ethnicity, caste and marital status)”; 62% in SK15 “Analyse adaptive capacities related
to climate change including gender dimensions”; 49% in SK26 “Scenario planning” and 42% in EWS5
“Lead in a community-based EWS”.
It will be important for Master Facilitators conducting in-person training to better understand these
findings. The peaks are for those with 0 years of experience, so it would be good to understand whether
the trainees have had any other opportunities to acquire these skills from training or if they have similar
skills, i.e. from other types of work that they think may be transferable. It is also suggested to understand
more about the trainees’ perceptions as to why this gap exists (i.e. it is that training is not offered or are
the training opportunities not comprehensive enough).
Given the focus on the gender dimension in the areas above with 0 years of experience, it will also be
important to take significant time to develop the GCVCA training materials and ensure that gender
experts are part of the design team.

26

● The skills with the highest % of experience over 5 years are SK5 “Community entry, mobilization,
participatory community engagement” and SK17 “Local Government Engagement (although both with

a limited 16%).
● Depending on the skills, the % varies from country to country. For example, SK14 “Analyse

vulnerability to climate change including gender dimensions and other differential factors” in South

Sudan seems to have the greatest number of trainees with no experience - at 35% of the total of
participants from all countries surveyed. The same for SK15 “Analyse adaptive capacities related to
climate change including gender dimensions”, South Sudan shows 34% of trainees with no experience.
Additionally for SK22 “GESI”, it is noted that 19% in South Sudan have no experience. In relation to
SK26 “Scenario Planning” once again, South Sudan has the highest % with no experience (32%).
● In general, trainees report to not have consolidated experience on most/all skills related to CBT and
EWS (0% of 5-years’ experience). Somalia trainees have more experience generally, whereas South

Sudan trainees have the least. CBT and CBDRM & Early Warning training materials will need to take

this into account.

● The table and graph below show the training needs identified by the trainees on a selected list of
skill sets:

Number of respondents

Training needs Somalia/ Sudan South Total
Somaliland 9 Sudan 47
SK5: Community Entry, Mobilization, Participatory
community engagement 16 22 61
SK14: Analyse vulnerability to climate change including
gender dimensions and other differential factors (e.g., 19 8 34 60
age, ethnicity, caste and marital status) 36
SK15: Analyse adaptive capacities related to climate 19 10 31 47
change including gender dimensions 17 5 14 56
SK17: Local Government Engagement 17 6 24 55
SK20: Ensure participation, agency, transparency and 54
inclusion of all groups 21 6 29 47
SK22: Create, collect, and analyse Gender Equality and 20 5 30 50
Social Inclusion (GESI) responsive indicators 63
66
SK26: Scenario planning 67
64
CBT2: Conduct community-based targeting (CBT) 21 9 24
16 5 26
CBT3: Define intervention(s) for targeting: activity type, 18 5 27
transfer modality, etc. and eligibility criteria 22 10 31

CBT6: Developing profiles of vulnerable groups 23 10 33
22 9 36
EWS2: Utilize EWS to help communities make decisions 20 9 35
related to disaster management
EWS3: Provide capacity development for early warning
for climate risks
EWS4: Design EWS that fit local context

EWS5: Lead in a community based EWS

27

Training needs identified by the trainees

40 22 34 31 24 29 30 24 26 27 31 33 36 35
35 16 19 19 17 21 20 21 16 18 22 23 22 20
30
25 17
20 14

15 9 8 10 6 6 9 10 10 9 9
10 5 5
5 5

5

0

Somalia/ Somaliland Sudan South Sudan

● The data show that the training demand in general is quite high, the majority of the trainees in each
country ask for more training in most areas.

● The 4 top skill sets that the trainees identified as most needed are all related to EWS: EWS4 “Design
EWS that fit local context” (67); EWS3 “Provide capacity development for early warning for climate
risks” (66); EWS5 “Lead in a community-based EWS” (64); and EWS2 “Utilize EWS to help
communities make decisions related to disaster management”. SK14 and SK15 followed, identifying
also as highly needed training on analysing vulnerability to climate change and adaptive capacity by
ensuring gender and overall inclusion dimensions.

● Skills related to CBT (CBT2 “Conduct CBT”; CBT3 “Define interventions for targeting”; CBT6
“Developing profiles of vulnerable groups”) were also identified as among the most needed areas. This
may be due to the fact that the CBT training references/modules available are mostly operational and
their content is highly technical. This needs to be carefully taken into consideration for the CBT
module design.

4. Programmatic Implications

a. Programmatic Adaptations

Key considerations and suggested action points as emerged from the Formative assessment and the OCA
and TNA are summarized below:
1. Being co-creation the founding approach of C4FC, it will be essential to continue to regularly work with

the LNGOs to understand motivations, interests, knowledge and practices/skills at organization and
individual level and identify what's needed to pursue effective shift from transactional to transformative
partnerships. The work on the Capacity Improvement Plans may be a further opportunity to enable

28

relationships and create a “safe space” where discussing understanding and capacity strengthening on
the basis of the needs and motivations identified by the organizations themselves within their own
context and relationships.
2. Linked to the above, acknowledging that the OCA methodology and tool adaptation relied mostly on
the experience accrued in Somalia, it will be needed to set realistic targets for the scope of organizational
development work with the partner organizations in Sudan and South Sudan.
3. In light of the findings in Somalia (where 7 organizations out of 8 scored higher than 75%, in 4 cases
even higher than 90%), it’s needed to reassess Indicator C3, as the target of 20% increase won’t be
relevant/possible for most of the organizations in the country.
4. LNGOs that successfully access funding for CDR and that are in general at a Maturing stage of
organizational capacity development (i.e. 7 organizations in Somalia and 5 organizations in Sudan) may
be engaged by the project in supporting cross-learning activities among organizations and countries, i.e
through peer support and learning mechanisms. This may be considered and operationalized in the
project approach.
5. It is recommended to consider deepening the discussion specifically on Safeguarding on the occasion of
the Capacity Improvement Plans, given that references, knowledge, skills about it are a precondition for
working in the communities (and critical for maintaining donor funding).
6. The differences of contextual factors among the 3 target countries about DRM capacities and needs, as
well as among the target LNGOs are great and pose an important issue of relevance and appropriateness
of uniform capacity development and training tools, techniques and approaches. Though security and
socio-economic factors differ across Somalia, Somaliland, Sudan, and South Sudan, improving security
and government and civil society conditions present an opportunity to contextualize and scale these
effective LNGO capacity building across contexts. The project team will continue to work to leverage
the technical capacity of partner Sadar and its network of learning partners to contextualize CDR
curriculum and tool kit to address country-specific hazards which render households and communities
less resilient.
7. The findings of the TNA that were herewith presented provide key elements and references informing
the CDR curriculum and toolkit development. However, the analysis will need to continue in order to
further review and better understand the data entries in Sudan, and to look for nuances both at country
and skill set level that may provide additional details as the modules are being developed.
8. The demand for training in general is quite high. It is essential to ensure that staff attend the most relevant
training as per assessed needs; this suggests the opportunity for the project to consider including work
on individual capacity plans on the basis of the TNA findings at Trainee level.
9. It is suggested that each Master Trainer will be supplied with the results of the TNA for each country
with details, so that she/he can know what the levels going into a training.
10.Reflecting the limited or no experience on skill sets related particularly to EWS as part of CBDRM, an
interesting shift to consider may be represented by early warning that translates into effective early
action that is not just “emergency programming, but earlier”. Early action should consist of interventions
that build on and support existing livelihood and coping strategies. Early action responses need to be
pre planned as part of an overall strategy. Revisions and implementation should be triggered by
appropriate indicators and supported by predictable funding, including from development budgets.
11.Given the assessed needs regarding the gender dimension, it will be important to take significant time
to develop the GCVCA training materials and ensure that gender experts are part of the design team.
12.Also CBT-related skills, needs and demands will need to be thoroughly reflected in the module
development, and reasons behind such great demand further understood.

29

b. Indicator Target Values
No changes were made to the ten outcome indicators C1-C10 and related targets that were approved by

BHA at application stage and in M&E plan review.
Ref. to programmatic adaptation #4 above, Indicator C3 will be re-assessed to reflect the fact that for

most organizations in Somalia the target of 20% increase won’t be relevant/possible but they will still have
scope for improvement.

5. Conclusion

The project embeds a co-creative process to achieve its overall intended goal in its delivery and project
cycle. The main activities are implemented in two approaches and the methodology of the Baseline study
reflects those. As is appropriate to the project design, it was not relevant to conduct a survey using a
probabilistic sample generating representative and statistically comparable indicator values; the purpose of
the Baseline Study was in fact descriptive and provided benchmarking. Baseline references for key outcome
indicators were generated through: i. Formative assessment (extensive desk review) and ii. applied capacity
assessment tools (OCATs and TNAs) with the target LNGOs.

The integrated findings from the 2 types assessments confirmed that the co-creation approach
embedded by the project is greatly relevant to the context of CDR in the region, and it may represent an
opportunity to go beyond the focus on optimizing management system and practices - not the impact of
programs and services - and a highly idealized, normative theory that well managed organizations with
strong administrative systems are able to respond consistently to the everyday challenges of CDR work.
The work on the Capacity Improvement Plans may be a further opportunity to enable relationships and
create a “safe space” where discussing capacity strengthening on the basis of the needs and motivations
identified by the organizations themselves within their own context and relationships. Creating a set of
indicators that clearly display progressive capacity development as pursued by the project may also help to
provide markers, which will contribute in time to show the development of the overall localization transition
in the countries.

As such, if on the one hand co-creation represents a major opportunity for the resilience-building work
in the countries, on the other hand it will represent the main challenge of the project itself, as it urges to:

i. Continually question consolidated experiences and WV/CARE and Sadar institutional learning;
ii. Re-think ways of working at organization and individual level, i.e. by favoring peer to peer engagement

and support;
iii. Develop training approaches that contextualize CDR curriculum and tool kit on the basis of country-

specific hazards and contexts. The report highlights the importance to maintain the promising approach
and attitude embedded so far by the project and to remain consistent with it and its ambitions. To do
so and being able to eventually pursue effective shift from transactional to transformative partnerships,
it will be essential to continue consistently engaging with the LNGOs to understand respective
motivations, interests and skills at organization and individual level, to enable relationships and to
create a “safe space” where discussing capacity strengthening on the basis of the needs identified by
the organizations themselves within their own DRM context and relationships.

6. Annexes

A. TNA Survey Instrument

30