CASI Mid-Term Review Final Report May-10-2007

CARE INTERNATIONAL IN VIETNAM
Civil Action for Socio-economic Inclusion in Natural Resource Management
Report of the CASI Mid-term Review
Prepared for the CASI Core Management Team
Graeme Storer (May 2007)

CASI Mid-term Review

Executive Summary
The Civil Action for Socio-economic Inclusion in Natural Resource Management (CASI)
Program responds to the challenges facing Vietnam‟s emerging civil society and to problems
of poverty that persist in rural areas despite the country‟s strong economic growth. CASI
supports and works with civil society to achieve “sustainable improvements in livelihood
security of disadvantaged and natural resource-dependent people in rural areas who lack
access to resources and influence over decisions that affect their lives.”
To achieve this goal, CASI works through partnerships and with local civil society
organizations engaged in poverty reduction, at various levels, including community-based
groups and organizations, farmers‟ cooperatives, NGOs, professional associations and mass
organizations.
The centrality of civil society organizations to the CASI program is clearly illustrated in the
three program objectives:
i. Mass organizations, VNGOs and CBOs provide appropriate and relevant services to
the rural natural resource-dependent poor that enable them to improve their
livelihoods.
ii. Mass organizations, VNGOs and CBOs facilitate participation of the rural natural
resource-dependent poor in decisions that affect their lives.
iii. Mass organizations, VNGOs and CBOs promote sustainable natural resources
management based on community needs and involvement
Three assumptions underpin the CASI approach. First, though civil society is a relatively new
and supposedly sensitive concept in Vietnam, it is gradually gaining acceptance. Second,
with support and guidance, Vietnamese civil society can develop into a means to help the
poor overcome barriers to change in a manner that is both effective and sustainable. Third,
this in turn will allow Vietnamese civil society to gain essential credibility with the Government
of Vietnam.
The CASI mid-term review provided an opportunity to re-explore these assumptions and to
also ask, how well are we doing in terms of achieving the three program outcome areas.
Thus the aim of the CASI mid-term review was to share, reflect and learn from the
achievements and strategies of CASI program to date; and to make recommendations for the
coordination and development of the CASI program up to and beyond 2009 (beyond the
current funding cycle).
In all, the review extended over five days. It included a two and a half day meeting (with
CARE and partner staff, as well as others interested in civil society, poverty reduction and
natural resource management) and a two-day follow up meeting conducted with the CASI
core management team.
This report provides an overview of the mid-term review process and discusses key outputs.
The report is written in the following way:
 Part one sketches out the planning and preparation for the review meeting and lists
the specific objectives and anticipated outputs.
 Part two begins with an overview of the five-day agenda before turning to more
detailed discussion of the flow and key outputs in the first two and half days.
 Part three briefly describes how reflective practice and action learning were integral
to the design.
i
 Part four discusses how the CASI core team reflected on the recommendations
generated in the first two and a half days to commit to action plans for change
 Part five provides reflections from the consultant on the implications of the
recommendations for CASI core program team.
There are four attachments:

I. A set of questions for the review, identified during the planning meeting held in
January 2007.
II. Background notes on the theory of change as well as a visual produced by the
CASI team to show the CASI change logic.
III. A list of learning resources and facilitation notes for the various sessions and
processes drawn on during the review meeting.
IV. A description of the evaluation processes used during the two meetings.
A CD-ROM is also available that includes (a) the detailed information made available in the
posters prepared for the knowledge fair and (b) the action plans that were produced at the
end of day five. These are available on request by contacting Ms Mai Thuy Hang
(mthang@care.org.vn) or Mr Le Van Son (lvson@care.org.vn) from the CASI core team.
I worked with the CASI core management team over a four-month period (beginning with the
planning meeting in January and concluding with the mid-term review in April 2007). It
became apparent in the early planning meetings that there was significant variation in
understanding amongst field staff and partners about how the various CASI components
contribute to an integrated program, to the centrality of civil society, and about the
significance of the cross-cutting themes. Thus we chose to focus the first two-and-half day
meeting on these aspects. We asked questions about both content and process: what do we
want to achieve in the mid-term review? Which areas do we need to explore in greater
detail? How can we draw on the opportunity provided by the review to build a common
understanding and buy in (re-commitment) to the entire program? Who needs to be at the
table to advance our thinking? And what kinds of workshop processes will allow both CARE
and partners staff to learn and grow? Feedback from participants in the mid-term review was
very positive. CARE and partner staff alike reported a better understanding of the “what” and
“how” of CASI and an increased confidence to talk about the program to others. It also
appears that civil society was demystified; partners commented that “ CASI is promoting civil
society” and “we can talk openly about civil society in meetings like this without fear.” The
CASI team ended the review with a sense of accomplishment, captured in the following
comment: “This was the first time to really have discussions to build a common
understanding among partners, CARE and outsiders.”
In many ways, the review was a milestone in moving from a set of component projects
bound together by a common approach, to a development practice in a program in which all
actors know about and can collectively support each other‟s work towards achieving higher
level objectives. This success belongs to the CASI core team, and I would like to
congratulate them for their willingness to take risks and to being open to exploring new ways
of learning together.
Graeme Storer
May 2007
ii
Table of contents
Executive Summary i
1 Background p.1
Planning for the mid-term review p.1
Objectives and anticipated outputs p.1
2 The review meeting p.3
The agenda flow p.3
The first day – civil society and CASI p.3
Civil society in Vietnam, Expectations, The knowledge fair,

Cafe conversations & Further questions
The second day – cross cutting themes p.8
Exploring cross-cutting themes & Overlapping issues
The third day – prioritizing recommendations p.10
Prioritizing recommendations & Big ideas
3 Reflective practice p.13
4 CASI core team follow up review, reflection and action planning p.14
5 Final reflections p.16
Attachments
I Key questions for the review as identified during the planning meeting p.22
II CASI theory of Change p.24
III Learning resources p.25
IV Evaluation processes p.41
Tables
1 Agenda for the mid-term review p.4
2 Civil society and poverty reduction p.6
3 Emerging recommendations from day one p.7
4 Ethnic minorities and poverty reduction p.16
iii
CASI mid-term review
1. Background
Planning for the mid-term review
A two-day meeting in January 2007 with the CASI core team and facilitators planned for the
mid-term review in April. The meeting produced the following outputs:
 Key questions to be addressed by the review were identified (Attachment I).
 Objectives and outputs for the review were identified based on the key questions.
 Four cross-cutting themes – advocacy, capacity building; partnerships and gender –
were identified for focused discussion during the review.
 A visual description of the CASI theory of change (Attachment II) was developed.
 A draft agenda was developed and action plans were produced defining individual
areas of responsibility for the core team members.
Following on from the meeting, the CASI core team developed detailed session plans for the
four cross cutting theme working groups and discussed these with the facilitators. The
facilitators reviewed and revised the agenda and sent it back to the core team for comments.
These comments were then included in a final draft agenda. Preparations were also carried
out for the knowledge fair. And criteria were agreed upon for participation in the mid-term
review.
Objectives and anticipated outputs

The aim of the CASI mid-term review was (a) to share, reflect and learn from the
achievements and strategies of CASI program to date; and (b) to make recommendations for
the coordination and development of the CASI program up to and beyond 2009.
Specific objectives and anticipated outputs were defined as follows:

What is CASI seeking to achieve?
1. To build a common understanding of what CASI is seeking to achieve as a
coherent program
 To show how a program differs from a project
 To identify how the different program component activities reinforce one
another towards achievement of the shared goal
2. To build a common understanding of the relation between civil society and

poverty reduction
 To identify key trends that link poverty reduction and civil society
 To provide specific examples of how civil society is developing in Vietnam
 To identify CASI‟s added value in this process
1
CASI strategies
3. To develop recommendations for enhancing CASI‟s partnership strategy
 To identify the aspirations and concerns of CASI partners and of CARE staff
 To highlight the values and expectations embedded in CASI‟s partnership
approach
 To identify lessons from our joint experience in past and current partnerships
 To identify changes to achieving more effective and collaborative
partnerships
4. To evaluate how well CASI‟s interventions have been able to channel the voice of
the poor up to national level
 To draw on the participants‟ experiences to identify stories of success and
challenges
 To identify mechanisms and structures that would allow for more effective
advocacy
5. To evaluate how well CASI‟s capacity building efforts are impacting on the lives
of the rural poor
 To identify lessons from experience to date, both successes and challenges
 To draw on these lessons to agree on 2–3 key measures of success
 To develop recommendations for shifts in focus to ensure the rural poor do
benefit from our efforts
6. To critically examine efforts to mainstream gender in all CASI components

 To identify what has been achieved to date to mainstream gender into CASI‟s
work.
 To examine whether or not these efforts are translating into positive impacts
on the lives of poor rural women and girls
 To make recommendations that will inform development of a comprehensive
gender strategy
Future directions
7. To discuss how CASI will need to evolve to remain relevant in the Vietnamese
development context
 To develop priority recommendations for changes that would enhance
coordination and also quality programming and learning.
Organizational development
8. To discuss the organizational implications of the recommendations generated
during the review
 To identify where CASI (and/or CARE) needs to align systems and practices
to promote stronger linkages, coordination and impact & learning
 To identify capabilities that will be needed to deliver on CASI‟s commitments.
2
2. The review meeting
The agenda flow

The actual review was in two parts:
 The first two and a half days – which included CASI and non-CASI CARE staff, CASI
partners and others interested in natural resource management, civil society and
poverty reduction – critically reviewed various aspects of the CASI Program and
generated a set of recommendations.
 The final two days – which involved only the CASI core management team – began
by reflecting on what had been achieved and the various recommendations to
develop action plans.
The agenda flow is summarized in Table 1.
The first day – civil society and CASI
Civil society in Vietnam

The workshop began with an address by Dr. Hoang Ngoc Giao on: what is civil society, what
does it mean in the Vietnamese context, and what trends are advancing or inhibiting the
development of civil society in Vietnam? In summary, Dr Giao described civil society as an
arena of social engagement that is non-profit and voluntary, and which leads to benefits for
society and communities. In so doing, he challenged the group‟s thinking. “Not all so-called
civil society organizations benefit the community or larger society”, he said. “Should we
really consider these organizations as civil society organizations?” He also referred to the
possibility of civil society as companion to the State.
What is civil society?

Civil society as companion
to the state……..
Not all civil society
organizations are
working for society.
An arena of social engagement that
is collaborative; non-governmental;
voluntary; based on trust, shared
respect and common interests; self-
regulating; and…….
A four-person panel discussion reacted to Dr Giao‟s address and raised questions. This
discussion proved to be of great interest to the participants, some of whom came believing
that it was „too risky‟ to openly talk about civil society.
3
Table 1. Agenda for the mid-term review
Mon Welcome & opening (Mr. Van Anh, CASI, and Ms Bui Hien Dung, CASI partner)
16-4 Civil Society in Vietnam: trends and development
2007
 Dr. Hoang Ngoc Giao, Law Faculty, Hanoi National University & Center for Research and
Consultation on Policy, Law and Development
 Special panel
What will make the meeting successful (expectations)?
Knowledge fair
 Building a common understanding of the what and how of CASI and the relationship to
civil society
Cafe discussion
 Civil society development in Vietnam and CASI‟s role
 What questions do you have for CASI?
Synthesis, feedback and closing
Tues Opening reflections and feedback on day one
17-4 Parallel working group discussions
2007
 Advocacy: are we giving a voice to poor people and ethnic minority groups? Can we do
more?
 Capacity building: are new skills being practiced? What difference does it make?
 Effective and collaborative partnership: how do we move forward together?
 Gender: what should we do to make our work and impact more gender-responsive?
Gallery walk (information exchange in groups)
Recommendations and priorities
Synthesis, feedback and closing
Wed Opening reflections and feedback on day two

18-4 Reviewing and prioritizing recommendations
2007
 How should CASI change in the future?
 Generation of big ideas
Synthesis and next steps
Evaluation and closing
Thurs CASI core team reflections

19-4  Practicing positive feedback and powerful listening
2007  Reflection on and evaluation of team performance – how we will work differently
Identification of pieces of work for completion and working on action plans
Fri Reporting out to team members on action plans

19-4 Next steps
2007
Commitment exercise
4
Expectations
Participants were then asked: “what will make this meeting successful for you. In all five
categories of expectations emerged:
Clarity on civil society and

poverty reduction and the role Learning (learning from each
CASI is playing other’s experience
What will make this

Developing a more coherent meeting successful? Clarity about CASI
program (integrating the partnerships
components)
Definition of future direction

Gender mainstreaming and
and what I need to do
gender & advocacy
The knowledge fair

Dr Giao‟s opening address and the comments made by the panel members provided the
platform for the knowledge fair. The knowledge fair had been set up to provide participants
with an opportunity to explore and understand the various components of CASI. Specifically,
participants were asked to seek out answers to the following questions:
 What are the different components that make up the CASI program and how do they
relate?
 What is the relationship between civil society and poverty reduction?
 Where/how is CASI contributing to civil society in Vietnam?
The knowledge fair – where is civil society?
5
Café conversations
Following the knowledge fair and in the cafe session after lunch, these questions were
explored in detail. Participants were also asked to identify questions and points of
clarification for the CASI team. The results of these café session discussions were recorded
on cards, which were grouped together on one wall.
The cards were reviewed overnight by the planning team and reflected back to the group the
following morning. Table 2 shows the group outputs for the relationship between civil society
and poverty reduction and examples of how CASI is contributing to civil society through its
work.
Table 2 Civil society and poverty reduction
Why Civil Society?

 Developing civil society promotes democratic processes, freedoms and rights, and allows
communities to participate in decision making about their lives.
 Developing civil society mobilizes resources and the creativity of the whole society in poverty
reduction efforts.
 Civil society is based on group processes and creates the channel for information sharing and
learning among group members and between different groups. Horizontal linkages between
community groups across different regions create wider civil society networks.
 Civil society organizations can also ensure the voice of the poor, their concerns and development
priorities, reach policy makers. In this way, the needs of communities can be included in local
and national poverty alleviation policies and action plans.
 Civil society organizations are also able to provide a bridge between communities and local and
State authority service delivery; many civil society organizations provide services to communities,
thereby filling gaps not met by the State.
 In this way, civil society allows for cooperation and collaboration between communities and State
agencies and the participation of people in all aspects of development.
 Civil society can also provide a mechanism for communities to participate in monitoring the
delivery of development programs thereby enhancing transparency and effectiveness.
What role is CASI playing?

CASI promotes the development of both local level (community-based) and national level (e.g. the
Women‟s Union or the Farmers‟ Union) civil society organizations.
It does this through:
a. Capacity building initiatives, including through organizational development interventions
(management, financial systems etc); quality operations and service delivery processes, provision
of specific technical skills; provision of natural resource management and farming production
models; and through awareness of legal policies and acting on rights
b. Promoting linkages and dialogue between CBOs, service providers and external resources.
c. Enhancing awareness of rights and civil society among communities, CASI partners and
gatekeepers.
d. Providing forums for VNGOs and CBOs to contribute their ideas to local and national policy
development and action planning.
e. Providing forums for informing the development of legal frameworks for civil society e.g. the
Cooperative and Association law.
f. Working with various stakeholders to ensure there is an enabling environment for sharing info
among VNGOs, CBOs and policy makers.
6
Further Questions
Table 3 shows the questions that emerged at the end of the first day (synthesized as a set of
emerging recommendations).
Table 3 Emerging recommendations from day one
More clarity about CASI

• What are the underlying principles that lead to the program design
• How does CASI relate to and overlap with Government development plans?
• How is CASI defining civil society?
• What role is CASI playing in promoting civil society?
Sharing and learning across CARE

• How do the different components relate/interact?
• How does CASI link with other CARE programming?
What is CASI doing to build internal capacity?
Partnerships
• Can we develop a more systematic approach to partnerships?
• What role can partners play in advocacy?
Capacity building
• What is the focus of CASI‟s capacity building efforts?
• What are we trying to achieve?
Advocacy
• Can we define how partners can contribute to advocacy efforts
• Can CASI develop models for engaging local communities in advocacy
Building an enabling environment

• How can CASI mobilize local authorities towards promoting civil society?
• What role can civil society organizations play in monitoring implementation of Government
development plans?
Who CASI works with

• Are CASI partners a part of civil society?
• Are we selecting the right partners?
• Is CASI identifying and/or working with the right stakeholders?
• Should there be a stronger focus on ethnic minorities?
7
The second day – cross cutting theme working groups
Exploring cross-cutting themes

Following the morning review and reflection, participants were given an opportunity to self-
select into one of four parallel working groups:
a. Effective and collaborative partnership: how do we move forward together?
b. Capacity building: are new skills being practiced? [How] are the CASI capacity
building interventions positively impacting the lives of the poor?
c. Gender: what should we do to make our work and impact more gender-responsive?
d. Advocacy: are we giving a voice to poor people and ethnic minority groups? Can we
do more?
Each group worked together through a set of structured activities to identify key
achievements and lessons learned and to develop a set of recommendations for how these
cross cutting themes could be strengthened in the CASI program. In the afternoon the
participants re-grouped and reported out on the work in a structured gallery walk.
The following is a summary of the recommendations from day two:
Partnerships
 Improve understanding, participation & ownership:
 Engage partners in the design of CASI
interventions
 Develop clear terms of reference for different
kinds of partnership (e.g. sub-contracting, co-
implementation)
 Develop selection criteria for partners for each terms of reference
 Provide partners staff with orientation and learning workshops
 Review CARE policies and procedures

 Look for ways to simplify contractual agreements
 Move to results-based performance measures and payment (based on the
terms of reference)
Capacity building
 Introduce processes and systems at the community level to track impact and to
address the question: is the capacity building work positively impacting on the lives
of the poor?
 Develop a more systematic and coherent capacity building strategy:
 Provide guidelines for conducting baseline surveys
& needs assessment
 Standardize approaches to training curricula and
materials, and which adapts materials to local
conditions
 Identifies and mobilizes local service providers
8
Gender
 Promote awareness raising both internally (with CARE
and partner staff) and externally (among communities
and gatekeepers)
 Develop standard indicators to measure impact within
CARE and among the communities where CASI works
 Incorporate gender analysis into each CASI component
Advocacy
 Develop an advocacy strategy:
 Clearly define what we want to achieve (the issues to be addressed and
goals)
 Describe approaches on how to implement
 Ensure advocacy is evidence-based
 Build research and analysis capacity
 Promote internal and external linkages to
facilitate learning and maximize advocacy efforts
 Engage local authorities and other stakeholders, actors and influencers
Overlapping issues
At this point in the work, it became noticeable that there was consistency in the observations
and recommendations made in the expectations session, in the questions raised at the end of
day one and in the day two recommendations. Four reinforcing themes emerged.
a. There is a need for both short- and long-term recommendations that will allow
CASI to enhance implementation of current commitments; and also to grow and
evolve over time.
b. There needs to be greater emphasis on program quality and learning

One way to achieve this is to identify recommendations that resonate (are relevant)
across all CASI components, and which will „naturally‟ lead to collaboration.
c. There needs to be greater emphasis on measurement and demonstrating

impact at the community level, specifically:
CASI needs to be able to show that interventions are having a positive impact on the
lives of poor women and ethnic minorities and that our capacity building efforts, for
example, are translating into positive changes at the community level.
d. CASI must address both external and internal changes.

That is, what changes will lead to greater impact on the communities CASI serves?
What internal changes (in capacity and in systems and organizational practice)
facilitate achieving the program objectives?
9
The third day
Setting priorities
Following the morning reflection, the participants were given time to review all the outputs –
which had been posted on the walls around the meeting room – and to decide which two or
three recommendations were most critical.
Most critical was defined as follows:
 Will lead to measurable benefits for the poor, especially women and ethnic
minorities
 Is relevant across all CASI program
 Will promote program quality and learning and measurement
 Will allow CASI to deliver on both short term- and long-term commitments
 Will address both internal and external changes
Participants were also asked to consider: what‟s missing?
The participants next worked in table groups to compile a list of critical recommendations.
These lists were then placed alongside each on flip charts. Participants were then given the
opportunity to place five votes against any of the recommendation on any of the lists.
A synthesis of the voting highlighted the following priority recommendations:

a. Capacity building
There were three areas of emphasis:
Coherent training strategy
 Developing a coherent training strategy that can be applied across all CASI
components, and including tips on how to adapt materials to local
contexts/cultures.
 Compiling a „tool kit‟ of proven content and methodologies and improving
documentation of training curriculum (our own and best practices).
Localised approach
 Using a local level strength-based approach that (a) engages local authorities
and civil society organization in all CASI capacity building activities and which
enhance relations; (b) makes better use of local service providers and
consultant services; and (c) builds local capacity through training of trainer
activities.
Impact measurement
 Developing a follow-M&E up system to measure the impact of training and
other capacity building efforts and to monitor the quality of the work at the
community level
10
b. Gender strategy
Emphasis was given to three areas:
Awareness and capacity
 Enhancing gender awareness and capacity among CASI and partner staff.
Quality analysis
 Strengthening quality gender analysis and incorporation of gender into
programming
Impact measurement
 Establishing gender indicators and applying these to all CASI components,
and monitoring the quality of gender analysis in project activities
c. Advocacy
The emphasis remained on developing a coherent advocacy strategy by:
 Establishing a network of interested organizations to do advocacy work
 Focusing on capacity building and advocacy in informal education
 Building capacity among CARE and partners; bringing in external expertise to
build capacity (hiring an advocacy expert)
 Including advocacy in planning processes with partners
 Working with civil society organizations to develop and disseminate models
for doing advocacy
d. Partnership strategy
Four main areas were highlighted:
Clarity on the „what‟ and „how of partnerships
 Reviewing and revising CASI partnership guidelines and clearly defining types
of partnership relations and expectations for each type (e.g. sub-contracting
or co-implementation)
 Developing terms of reference based on the review so that CARE and
partners have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities in each type
of partnership
 Developing clear criteria for selecting partners and project locations
Building ownership and understanding

 Strengthening partner relations and ownership of results through joint
participation in design and implementation and organizing workshop
exchanges to share learning between CASI and partners
Building capacity
 Assessing partner and staff capacity before proceeding with project activities,
and then building capacity of CARE and partner staff in all cross cutting
strategies
11
Learning
 Strengthening mechanisms for information sharing among CARE and partners
and across all components; documenting learning
In addition to the recommendations linked to specific strategies, other recommendations

emerged relating to the program as a whole.
e. Program quality and learning
Coordination
 Re-communicate a clear and concise strategy for CASI and its work on
poverty reduction
 Strengthen start up and roll out planning
 Increase integration of CASI with government and local authority
development plans
 Enhance sharing and learning processes among different CASI components,
partners and CARE staff
 Coordinate implementation of all cross cutting issues through agreed on
mechanism and clear guidelines
Impact measurement
 Put in place indicators to track impact on poor women and ethnic minorities
to be used by both CARE and partners
 Strengthen baseline and needs assessment
 Develop- risk assessment and management plan with indicators
 Give more emphasis to quality outputs
f. Civil Society
 Keep building capacity for civil society organizations
 Seek out ways to engage Mass Organizations as civil society building partners
Big ideas
The meeting finished with a brainstorming session to identify „big ideas for the future. The
meeting was asked to:
Consider Vietnam in future – the context of environmental degradation, climate
change, increasing poverty gaps and marginalization of ethnic minorities, economic
growth within the World Trade Organization, and likely decreasing donor
development aid. Now, think ahead beyond 2008 (the current funding cycle). You
are part of a design team. The team is going to design a „new‟ CASI program.
What kinds of big ideas should we include in the design? Be bold, think big!
The ideas generated by the meeting included suggestions for strengthening the current focus
as well as „new‟ ideas:
 Have a stronger, more explicit environmental focus.
 Link more with the private sector – advocate for corporate social and environmental
responsibility, accessing funds for poverty reduction work, and making markets work
for the poor.
12
 Support civil society organisations to access their own development funds (including
funding from the private sector) to enable their voice and access to economic
opportunities.
 Address the impact of growing landlessness and rural-urban migration.
 Support „local‟ Vietnamese initiatives e.g. an independent advocacy and policy
institute, and a training centre for development practitioners.
 Link civil society strengthening and rights based approaches to development to legal
aid and support as required.
The first part of the review was now over.
3. Reflective practice
Three assumptions guided the design and implementation of the CASI mid-term review.
 First, a key role for CARE and partner staff, as they adopt rights-based approaches to
programming, is to create highly inclusive, participatory, and collaborative
environments in which social change can occur.
 Second, creating these environments requires staff to master new skills for engaging
communities, partners, and other stakeholders in meaningful dialogue around
questions that matter.
 Third, experiential learning and ongoing reflection are integral to linking project
quality and learning and allow for adjustments of project activities along the way. It
also builds analytical and technical capacity among CARE and partner staff.
Learning through experience
experience >
Participants start by identifying their own experience.

They reflect on that experience (What? Why? When? Where?
How?)
respond >
reflect >
They think about how they could change that experience for
the better
They respond to this reflection by making changes.
With changes in place, participants re-examine the experience,
reflecting again, changing, experiencing, reflecting, changing....
< possibilities
Reflective learning is an ongoing process in which participants in a particular situation take time to
examine their experiences, to reflect on these experiences, to think how things might be different, to
think through these possibilities, and to try out what seems to be the best option. But this is not the end:
Trying that option becomes another experience in itself – to study, reflect upon, etc.
Source: Fletcher, G, Magar, V B and Noij, F 2005, Learning by Inquiry: Sexual and Reproductive Health
Field Experiences from CARE in Asia, Sexual and Reproductive Health Working Paper Series No. 1, CARE
USA (June 2005)
13
Thus we set about to design a workshop that provided a safe space that would allow
participants to experience different ways of learning together. At the close of each day we
reflected on the work that had been done. And each morning we reflected the work back to
the group for comments and clarification. The different facilitation processes employed
during the review are described in Attachment III. The evaluations processes are described in
Appendix IV.
4. CASI core team follow up review, reflection and action planning

On day four, the CASI core team reflected on the work of the first three days. This section
summarizes their reflections on the workshop outputs and their contributions as a team, and
how they committed to action plans.
1. What were the positive outcomes during the two and half day review?
There was general agreement that all participants now have a better understanding of
the CASI program, its components and the four cross cutting strategies. During the
meeting there was clearer definition of what has been achieved thus far, what is still
missing and (following on) future directions.
The workshop produced practical short-term and long-term recommendations, which
included developing CASI program level strategies on the cross cutting issues, and
generating big ideas for the future.
The core team agreed that the review increased appreciation of the need for cross-
learning (both within CASI and across CARE projects). Participants were enthusiastic
about having more inter-component interaction.
It appeared that civil society has been de-mystified – participants see that CASI is
facilitating civil society – and that civil society may not be as sensitive as previously
thought.
Others commented on how the workshop process – atmosphere, facilitation methods,
room layout – enabled free and active participation by all. Overall conclusion: Great
workshop! This was the first time to really have discussions to build a common
understanding among partners, CARE and outsiders.
It was apparent though that partners are still dissatisfied with CARE‟s financial
regulations.
2. What was missing from the meeting outcomes?

Among the CASI core team, there was a call for more detailed action plans, and
agreement that many of the recommendations were too general. The team recognized
that there needs to be a better sense of how to coordinate the various components and
to coordinate the work of the team.
It was also recognized that CASI staff could have been more proactive during the
knowledge fair in engaging participants. This is, in part, because the team is still
evolving a common language and the confidence to speak about the whole program.
3. What should we do differently next time?

A number of suggestions were made:
 A two-day meeting with the third day reserved for the core team to finalize plans
 A field (non-Hanoi) location for the meeting
14
 A field trip to a project site

 Keep the knowledge fair but place it differently in the meeting, change how the
group interact with participants, include more variety (e.g. video clips,
conversation corners as well posters), and provide more take-away materials for
participants that are directly relevant to the meeting agenda.
4. What did you get out of the meeting that will help you in your work?
Facilitation methods; talking about coherence of CASI and the role of the Program
Development and Coordination Facility; improved understanding of others and their
contributions; understanding of our approach to partnerships and of our partners‟
expectations.; I now feel more confident to work with the partners
5. What is your burning issue? (What big questions/concerns do you have following on
from the meeting?)
A number of questions were raised, including:
 How can I apply what we talked about into practice?
 How can we work together as a team more effectively?
 Should we mobilize partners in setting the agenda?
 What plans are there for capacity building in the CASI team?
 What is the focus of our advocacy strategy?
 When we will get clarity on gender mainstreaming and partnership selection?
 Are we working with the right people? / Are our partners as interested in civil
society as CASI, and if not, what do we do about that?
 Did we get the right people to the meeting (and if not, why not)?
6. A number of different facilitation techniques were used during the workshop. Which of
these will you use in your work and why? How confident do you feel?
Cafe methodology and synthesis; final card synthesis and voting procedures; and the
round-robin gallery process
7. What skills do we collectively need as a team to further build our capacity?

Skills discussed by the team included:
 Facilitation
 Analysis and synthesis
 Providing constructive feedback
 Managing self
 Working with conflict, and
 Powerful listening
It was also agreed that there should be mechanisms for demonstrating how CASI staff
capacity building efforts and leading to positive changes in workplace behaviours.
15
Action planning
Drawing on the recommendations generated during the first three days and on their
evaluation of the review, the team developed detailed action plans for each of the following:
a. Advocacy
b. Capacity building
c. Partnerships
d. Mainstreaming gender
e. Program quality and learning, which included:
 Developing and putting into practice a comprehensive monitoring system for
CASI.
 Strengthening mechanisms for internal and external program coordination and
sharing and for networking.
 Actions for strengthening the focus on ethnic minorities and poverty reduction
(Table 4 below).
Table 4. Ethnic minorities and poverty reduction
 Share recent national documentation on poverty in Vietnam and poverty among

ethnic minorities
 Plan for how to better focus on ensuring CASI is tailored and responds to
concerns, needs and demands of ethnic minority groups.
 Include poverty and how we reach ethnic minorities in CASI sharing meetings
 Host a thematic workshop on methods and issues relating to working with ethnic
minority groups and realizing poverty reduction in areas populated by ethnic
minority groups.
In the final section, I summarize key messages that emerged during the review as well as
comment on the various recommendations and their implications for the CASI team.
5. Final reflections
At several points during the review, the question was asked: are we working with the right
people? The question arose in different ways, firstly linked to the “disadvantaged and natural
resource-dependent people in rural areas” named in the goal. But the question was a
recurring theme in the discussions on partnerships: do our [current] partners really care
about civil society? Do our partners have the capabilities needed to do the work? It featured
in the capacity building and gender discussions: are our interventions having a positive
impact on the lives of poor women and ethnic minority groups? And it came up in
discussions on civil society: how can we work more effectively with mass organizations. How
can we draw these organizations into our work with civil society?
It was noticeable during the review – in part because of the way the agenda had been
structured – that we talked little about the linkages between natural resource management
and poverty reduction. This is a reminder to the CASI team to continually look for linkages
16
across the various capacity components and to focus its measurement on the over-arching
program objectives:
Mass organizations, VNGOs and CBOs
 Provide appropriate and relevant services to the rural natural resource-dependent
poor that enable them to improve their livelihoods.
 Facilitate participation of the rural natural resource-dependent poor in decisions that
affect their lives.
 Promote sustainable natural resources management based on community needs and
involvement.
In short, all CASI team members need to focus on the big picture – Civil Action for Socio-
economic Inclusion in Natural Resource Management – and to continually remind
stakeholders about the how various components work n concert.
Going forward, the CASI program can sharpen its focus in a number of ways.
i. Capacity building
Capacity building is an ends to a means, and the recommendation to establish
community-level indicators to track the impact of capacity building interventions will
be an important first step in understanding if the capacity building interventions are
having a positive impact at the community level. For CASI, this is about asking: what
do we want to achieve?
A second step will be to critique both training content and approaches. In particular,
the CASI team should critically review the „training of trainers‟ model that is central to
much of the capacity building work. The key to achieving the recommended “local
level strength-based approach” (which I read as community-led capacity building) will
be to move away from training towards empowerment education strategies, like
those of Paulo Friere1, which surface community needs and engage communities in
solution finding.
CASI must also recognize that “trainers” usually replicate their own training when
they go out to train others. If they are lectured to in their trainer of trainer (TOT)
sessions, then they will, more likely than not, lecture others. But if they are exposed
to empowering facilitation in their TOT, then they might be open to taking risks and
empowering others. Thus all TOT sessions must model the empowerment
approaches CASI espouses for communities.
Above all, in moving towards a “coherent” training strategy: keep it simple! It would
be easy to over focus on developing a large (and, at the end of the day, uninviting)
manual. Instead the focus should on compiling a practical „tool kit‟ of proven content
and methodologies (CARE‟s and others‟). CASI could improve its documentation of
training practices that work by moving away from written formats and exploring
visual forms of documentation and, where appropriate, computer-based learning
technologies.
ii. Partnerships
The CASI team has reached clarity over the last few months about how to enhance
its partnership strategy. Defining the different kinds of partnership and developing
terms of references for each will be an important advance. There are a variety of
ways to characterize partnership relations. Three examples are:
1
Freire, P, 1985, The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation, Houndmills, Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
17
 Sub-contracting, where CARE‟s main role is to monitor program quality and

to provide technical inputs as and when required. In this relationship,
capacity building of the partner is secondary to going to scale.
 Co-implementation partner, where the relationship is based on equal
contribution and team work, and where CARE and partner staff seek out
opportunities to both build internal capacity during the project life cycle and
engage together in reflective dialogue about program quality.
 Building a local vibrant capacity to take over responsibility for the work when
CARE leaves. CARE‟s role in this transition is (a) to facilitate and mentor the
development of a local organization to replace CARE as the implementing
agency; and (b) to document and disseminate the organizational
development process (so that it can be applied in other locations). In this
relationship, capacity building and program quality are closely linked.
Whatever typology is used, it is important to recognize that each type of relationship
requires a different level of attention (caring). Thus most relationships will be sub-
contracting. A smaller number will be co-implementation and only a few will be
about building an independent and vibrant local organization. Making expectations
clear for each relation and „levelling expectations‟ up front through customized terms
of reference and contracts will certainly help to remove some of the frustrations
expressed by both CARE and partners staff.
It will also be important to clear up, as much as possible, the dissatisfaction partners
expressed about CARE‟s financial and reporting systems and procedures. I
recommend that CASI advocate internally for a full review of CARE‟s program support
functions to ask: [how] do our program support procedures facilitate our partnership
strategies? And, how can these be simplified without compromising program quality
and donor accountability?
iii. Advancing civil society

In the discussions of what is civil society in the Vietnamese context, one participant
challenged the widely-accepted understanding that civil society exists independently
from the family, State and markets by arguing that mass organizations bridge the
State and communities. And Dr Giao, towards the end of his address, imagined civil
society “as companion to the State.”
There was an appreciation in the meeting that programs like CASI can and are
advancing civil society in Vietnam. The opportunity going forward is to identify one
or two partners who are committed to civil society and who have the potential to
significantly influence others, and then work with these partners to expand the
momentum of civil society development.
While the mass organizations have not yet
fully committed to civil society, they have the
potential to influence the State and to
becoming strong allies. CASI needs to
explore this opportunity further. One way to
approach this challenge would be to select
one mass organization where CASI has
developed a positive and productive working
relationship, and invite the mass organization
to a learning forum with two (no more than
three) vibrant local civil society organizations.
CARE‟s role in the process would be (a) to
ensure the civil society organizations are
prepared to speak cogently about how they are organizing themselves and the
positive impacts civil society can achieve in poverty alleviation; and (b) to facilitate
18
the dialogue during the forum so that all parties are able to express their passion and
doubts. In this way, the power and potential of civil society will be localized.
Following on, CARE could then invite the mass organization to become fully engaged
in the civil society network and to help CARE in it advocacy efforts by bringing the
voices of the poor up to regional and national levels. Other roles may emerge during
the learning forum. The key is to see mass organization as part of the solution.
iv. Advocacy
Two consistent themes in the Advocacy recommendations were to develop a
coherent strategy and a set of operational guidelines that can be applied across all of
CASI. As with the capacity building, I would stress the need to begin by establishing
the business case: what are we wanting to achieve and why? This will allow CASI to
focus its efforts. I believe CASI should also challenge the „identified need‟ to build
internal capacity. Rather, CARE should first ask: who can we partner with to do
research and analysis? Who are the players with whom we can partner, and with
whom we can learn and grow? CARE does not always need to be the “big sister” in
its relationships with others.
v. Gender
Similarly, the gender strategy needs to be clear about what success will look like, and
to critically assess what has worked and not worked to date. In developing the
gender strategy, the CASI team should remain mindful that raising awareness is a
necessary but insufficient requirement. Before developing a strategy, ask what has
worked in other locations. Ask: are we living our gender values among our own
staff? (An internal audit might be revealing.) How can we make sure that the CASI
gender strategy not only reflects the donor requirements, but also reinforces (and is
reinforced by) the CARE Vietnam organizational-wide gender strategy? As above, my
recommendation is to seek out (in this case internal) allies to partners with on this
work, and to not duplicate efforts.
iv. Program quality and learning

As noted at the beginning of this section, the CASI team needs to continually look for
linkages across the various capacity components and to focus its measurement on
program outcomes (the program objectives) and not the individual component
outputs. The review also showed (a) that CASI needs to give greater emphasis to
measuring impact at the community level; and that (b) the primary focus must be on
rural natural resource-dependent poor and, in particular, on women and ethnic
minority groups. Developing and putting into practice a comprehensive monitoring
system for CASI is an immediate priority, and a necessary pre-requisite to
strengthening mechanisms for internal and external program coordination and
networking.
v. Addressing both internal and external changes

The review highlighted the need to pay attention to both external and internal
changes. Some of the internal changes noted are about systems and processes to
facilitate the external work (for example, clarifying partnership relations through
terms of reference linked to partnership type, developing an advocacy strategy and
so on). Others were about testing and aligning organizational practice, for example,
asking if all the CASI team subscribe equally to gender equity and testing how well
we „do‟ gender as a team.
19
Over the past few months, the CASI core team have worked at their own internal
team dynamics. Their progress has been noteworthy. From the initial forming2
work (characterized by politeness, reserved behaviours and low risk-taking), the
group has moved through storming (defending, win-lose confrontations and poor
listening) to norming (seeking way to help each other, and being supportive and
receptive to each other‟s needs). The mid-term review provided the core team with
the opportunity for performing, and for demonstrating greater openness, trust, and
listening. I would like to congratulate the team on their progress and on their
willingness to take risks during the review process. But team building is not a one-off
activity, and team dynamics shift and change over time. Thus I urge the team
 To continue with the action learning they have been practising together, as
this is the key to maintaining the coherence and commitment generated
during the review.
 To seek out ways to further enhance their facilitation skills (including
powerful listening, managing conflict and presentation of the self), and to
provide each other with supportive and timely feedback.
The review was a milestone in moving from a set of component projects bound together by a
common approach, to a development practice in a program in which all actors know about
and can collectively support each other‟s work towards achieving higher level objectives. This
success belongs to the CASI core team, and their willingness to take risks and to being open
to exploring new ways of learning together.
Graeme Storer
May 2007
2
Tuckman, B.W., 1978, Educational Psychology: From Theory to Application, Fortsworth, Texas:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
20
Attachments
21
Attachment I
Key questions for the review as identified during the planning
meeting
A two-day meeting in January 2007 with the CASI core team and facilitators planned for the
review in April. The key questions to be addressed by the review were identified as follows:
1. What is CASI seeking to achieve?

 How does CASI work as a coherent program? How does a program differ from
a project? How do the different component activities reinforce each other
towards achievement of the shared goal?
 What is the relationship between civil society and poverty reduction? What
are the key trends linking poverty reduction and civil society? How is civil society
developing in Vietnam? What is CASI‟s added value?
2. CASI strategies
 What values and expectations are embedded in CASI‟s partnership approach?
What are the aspirations and concerns of CASI partners and of CARE staff? What
lessons can be drawn from our joint experience? What needs to change to
achieve more effective and collaborative partnerships?
 How well have we been able to channel the voice of the poor (especially women
and ethnic minorities) up to the national level? What evidence do we have for
this? What mechanisms and structures would allow for more effective
advocacy?
 How well are our capacity-building efforts impacting on the lives of the rural
poor? What lessons from experience tell us we are making progress? What are
the challenges? What shifts in focus can we make to ensure the rural poor do
benefit from CASI‟s capacity building interventions?
 Are the CASI interventions having a positive impact on the lives of poor rural
women and girls? What evidence do we have? What has been achieved to date
to mainstream gender in our work? What needs to happen to further
strengthen CASI‟s gender work?
3. Future directions
 How should CASI evolve to remain relevant in the Vietnamese development
context? For example, should CASI focus both on civil society development and
rights related to natural resource development? Why and how? What other
opportunities are there? What shifts would lead to more efficient and
collaborative coordination and quality programming?
4. Organizational development
 What are the organizational implications of the recommendations generated
during the review? Where/how can we align our systems and practices to
promote stronger linkages, coordination and impact & learning? Do we need a
different management structure? What capabilities will be needed to deliver on
our commitments?
22
Attachment II
CASI theory of Change
Background
Complex programs are difficult to evaluate when underlying assumptions about the
predetermined results are not clearly articulated. A theory of change makes clear the change
logic in a project or program by describing the assumptions that explain both the mini-steps
that lead to the long term goal and the connections between program activities and outcomes
that occur at each step of the way.
Articulating a theory of change also helps with program design by clearly articulating
assumptions and identifying gaps between program activities and outcomes, hence, creating
realistic program expectations. By systematically articulating the links between activities and
outcomes, a theory of change describes how and why an initiative is intended to work.
Components of Theory of Change

The Theory of Change process uses a technique called backward mapping, and comprises
four elements: outcomes framework, assumptions, strategies or interventions, and indicators.
The first step is to define the desired long-term goal, then, intermediate and lastly early goals
that are needed to achieve lasting change. The outcomes of the early goals are
preconditions for the intermediate goals and so forth until it leads to the desired and
anticipated long term change. The relationship between outcomes is represented in a chart
known as the outcomes framework.
Long-term
Explains WHY here Outcome
Show activities
here also
Necessary Necessary Necessary

Preconditions Preconditions Preconditions All
outcomes
that must
be
achieved
BEFORE
Necessary Necessary Necessary long-term
Preconditions Preconditions Preconditions
The second component articulates the assumptions that clarify the logic behind what is being
illustrated in the framework chart. These assumptions explain how and why change is
expected to occur at each step of the change process including interventions and activities.
23
The third element of a theory of change determines the strategies (pathways) that will be
established to carry out every outcome in the outcome framework map. A rule of thumb is
that the actions are designed only after the outcomes framework and guiding assumptions
have been clearly established. In other words, the outcomes in the framework determine the
choice of strategy.
The fourth and last component in the theory of change identifies measurable indicator(s) for
successful outcomes. Indicators include factors such as timeline, population, and threshold.
The theory of change has an obvious application to program design, mid-term reviews and
evaluations. Well-articulated theories provide the type of information that program evaluators
can extract to confirm whether the change can be attributed to the program or other external
factors (an issue of attribution). The theory of change approach requires thinking critically
about assumptions and determining whether the assumptions make sense (based on
evidence or experience). This kind of thinking improves staff capacity to analyse complex
situations. Also, different stakeholders coming together to create the theory of change will
come with their own theory of why and how the change will happen. Sharing ideas and
perspectives in this way increases learning thereby promoting a learning culture.
CASI‟s change framework is depicted in the following visual:
24
Attachment II
Learning resources
1. Facilitating development dialogues
A key role for development workers as they adopt rights-based

approaches to address the underlying causes of poverty is to create highly
inclusive, participatory, and collaborative environments in which social
change can occur. Creating these environments requires development
workers to master new skills for engaging communities, partners, and other stakeholders
in meaningful dialogue around questions that matter.
Principles of Engagement
Guidelines for designing participatory, creative, and productive group processes:

 Self-organizing – participation cannot be mandated: it is a response to
authentic invitations to co-create the means for bringing about social change.
 Clear identity – every work team or community needs to determine its unique
identity, including purpose, values, agreements about how to work and learn
together, and expectations of behaviours and norms.
 Relationship-centred – working and learning in community is a choice that
begins with developing relationships of openness, understanding, trust, and
accountability.
 Expansive and inclusive – communities stay healthy as they include new and
diverse members. Whenever a group or community is stuck or becoming too
inwardly focused, the solution is to bring in new voices that haven‟t been included
in the past.
 Open – communities thrive on open information and easy access to members.
Secrecy, protecting information, cliques, and elite status, destroy community.
 Information-rich – successful learning environments are information-rich.
The environment must include and invite contributions of real substance, and use
methods that facilitate and sustain active inquiry and participation.
 Application-oriented – teams (or communities) increase their capacity by
experimenting with their real work. The community works together to practice and
refine new designs and methods, and to make their learning visible to others.
 Reflective – reflective practice is essential to bringing about both individual
and collective learning, to creating new knowledge about what works, and to
strengthening relationships across distance and difference.
 Iterative – it takes time and practice to discover what works. Members of
communities must be willing to engage with one another over time, feeding the
results of their learning back into the community, repeating processes and
behaviours until new patterns develop.
25
Tools of Engagement: Dialogue
Most forms of dialogue share at least some of the following guidelines: 3

1. We talk about what's really important to us.
2. We really listen to each other. We see how thoroughly we can understand each
other's views and experience.
3. We say what's true for us without making each other wrong.
4. We see what we can learn together by exploring things together.
5. We avoid monopolizing the conversation, so that everyone has a chance to speak.
A comparison of dialogue and debate

 Dialogue is collaborative: two or more sides work together toward common
understanding. Debate is oppositional: two sides oppose each other and attempt to
prove each other wrong.
 In dialogue, finding common ground is the goal. In debate, winning is the goal.
 In dialogue, one listens to the other side(s) in order to find meaning and agreement.
In debate, one listens to the other side in order to find flaws and to counter its
arguments.
 Dialogue enlarges and possibly changes a participant's point of view. Debate affirms
a participant's own point of view.
 Dialogue reveals assumptions for reevaluation. Debate defends assumptions as truth.
 Dialogue causes examination of one's own position. Debate causes critique of the
other position.
 Dialogue opens the possibility of reaching a better solution than any of the original
solutions. Debate defends one's own positions as the best solution and excludes
other solutions.
 Dialogue encourages an openness to being wrong and an openness to change.
Debate creates a closed-minded attitude, a determination to be right.
 In dialogue, one submits one's best thinking, knowing that other people's reflections
will help improve it rather than destroy it. In debate, one submits one's best thinking
and defends it against challenge to show that it is right.
 Dialogue calls for temporarily suspending one's beliefs. Debate calls for investing
wholeheartedly in one's beliefs.
 In dialogue, one searches for basic agreements. In debate, one searches for glaring
differences.
 In dialogue, one searches for strengths in the other positions. In debate, one
searches for flaws and weaknesses in the other positions.
 Dialogue involves a real concern for the other person and seeks to not alienate or
offend. Debate involves a countering of the other position without focusing on
feelings or relationship and often belittles or deprecates the other person.
 Dialogue assumes that many people have pieces of the answer. Debate assumes that
there is a right answer and that one person has it.
 Dialogue remains open-ended. Debate implies a conclusion.
3
Adapted from Tom Atlee of the Co-Intelligence Institute (www.co-intelligence.org)
26
2. Ways to get to know each other and to build trust
a. Introducing each other

Instructions to group
 Find a partner – preferably someone you do not already know
 Tell your partner your name and who you are (something about your work
and how you like to spend your free time).
 When everyone is ready, you are to introduce your partner to the rest of the
group
b. Treasure hunt
Instructions to group
 Take a card and write down something that no one knows about you.
 Write in block letters
 Don‟t sign the card
Next the facilitator collects and shuffles the cards. S/he then says: I am going to give
each of you a card. Please look at the card and let me make sure I don‟t give you
back your card. If I do, give it back to me and I will give you another one.
When all the cards have been given out, give the next set of instructions:
 You are to go round and find the owner of the card
 Talk to the person and find out what‟s the story behind what they wrote
down.
Note: this is an exercise in patience and listening. One person may find her/his card
owner and want to talk to her/him. S/he, however, may be trying to find her partner
or be in the middle of a conversation.
Debrief
 What did we learn from the exercise about how we responded?
 What does this tell us about how we manage our time together?
 What does this tell us about our team?
27
c. Speed dating
 Before the participants come into the room, arrange the chairs in
two concentric circles. After you have introduced yourself, ask the
people in the inner circle to turn their chairs around so that they
are facing the person behind.
Briefly tell your partner about something in your life [work or
personal] that you feel excited about. (Decide who will speak
first. Each person should speak for about 5 minutes.)
 After 10 minutes (or when you can see that people are finishing up), ask the
people on the inside row to stand and move three places to the left.
Now, tell your partner something about your life that makes you feel proud.
 After 10 minutes or so, ask the people sitting in the outside circle to stand and
move X places to the right.
Tell your partner about someone in your life who has been important to you –
who is/was the person and how were they important to you?
 Repeat the process:

Tell your partner about a character in a book or film that you like and who
shows a quality that you have yourself – describe the character, the quality and
how you yourself show this quality.
What was one moment in your life when you felt different from other people?
What is the journey that brought me here and what is my intent for being
here?
 Debrief – select a few individuals to share her/his partner‟s journey and intent.
Note – if the room is set up with tables then change the instructions as follows:
 Tell the participants to move around the room and find a partner – someone
that they do not know well or someone they do not work with on a day-t-day
basis
 Now move again and find a new partner. Remember to find someone you do
not know well.
 Repeat the process until all questions have been covered.
28
d. Expectations and concerns

Each person will be given two different-coloured cards (e.g. blue and yellow).
Instructions:
On the blue card, write down your hope for the meeting – what do you hope will
happen, will be discussed, will be achieved?
On the yellow card, write down your one concern for the meeting e.g. that we won‟t
talk about X, that we won‟t develop realistic plans etc
Give the participants about 5 minutes to write on their cards.
Then tell the participants: Walk around the room, introduce yourself to the people
you don‟t know and then share what you wrote on your cards. Try to find five people
who share the same hope and concern as you.
Debrief:
How many people were able to find at least one other person who shared the same
hope or concern? How many people found three other people? How many found four
/ five?
What did you notice? What seems to be the mood of the group – positive or negative
or…?
At the end of the exercise, collect all the cards and during a break, cluster the cards
on one wall. Remember to refer back to the cards during subsequent sessions.
During the CASI meeting, we gave people one card only and asked: What will make
this meeting successful? There were five different clusters of cards from the
participants
Clarity on civil society and Learning (learning from

poverty reduction and the each other‟s experience
role CASI is playing?
What will make this

Developing a more coherent meeting successful?
program (integrating the Clarity about CASI
components) partnerships
Definition of future direction

and what I need to do Gender (mainstreaming and
advocacy)
29
e. Practising powerful listening

Ask the participants to stand in a circle facing the centre.
Explain that the aim of the exercise is to count from 1 to 30 (approximately
double the number of participants in the group).
There are three rules:
 First, the counting has to be random around the circle.
 Second, each person has to speak at least one time.
 Third, two people cannot speak at the same time. If they do, the group has to
go back to #1.
Then ask the participants to close their eyes and begin.
Note: the group will quickly get stuck and, perhaps, frustrated with each other. The
facilitator should tell them not to rush, to listen carefully to each other, to try to
recognize who has not yet spoken and to give those people time/space to come in.
f. Providing positive feedback

Each person has a large A-4 card on his/her back.
Tell participants to take a few minutes to look around the room at their team mates.
Think of one positive characteristic (behavior) each person contributes to the team.
Walk around and write the word(s) on the person‟s card.
Debrief:
Ask the participants to take the cards of their backs and to silently read and reflect
on the comments.
30
3. Defining team behaviours
How we will live the core values at CARE
The purpose of this exercise is two-fold.

 First, engaging a group of staff in defining behaviours for the core values helps
to build a common understanding among the group of what the core values mean
 Second, asking staff to agree on 2/3 clear behaviours for each core value
provides a tool for managing team performance and performance reviews
Defining core values behaviours

In this activity, the group will build agreement together on the behaviours that they will
model to each other and to the rest of CARE Vietnam.
Tell participants that the behaviours must be SMART – they should look for behaviours
that will have yes/no answers e.g.
We will meet once per week to exchange updates.
We will meet our deadlines on time and within budget.
If we are unable to meet a deadline, we will inform our supervisors in advance.
Note: The behaviours defined by the group can be incorporated into performance
discussions.
Respect
Excellence
Commitment
Integrity
A similar exercise can be done with the seven competencies defined for all CARE Vietnam
staff.
31
4. Café methodology process guide
Hosting a World Café4

World Café is an easy-to-use method, invented by Juanita Brown and David Isaacs, for
creating meaningful conversations in which every voice can be heard. Cafés are built on
the assumption that people have within them the wisdom and creativity to confront even
the most difficult challenges.
Café Guidelines
Clarify the purpose for bringing people together. (Another way to say this is: clarify the
questions the group will be discussing and make sure that the questions are of
importance to the participants, not just the meeting organizers.)
 Create a hospitable space
 Explore questions that matter
 Encourage everyone‟s contribution
 Connect diverse perspectives
 Listen for insights and share discoveries
Café Process
1. Seat four or five people at small café-style tables or in conversation clusters

2. Set up progressive (usually three) rounds of conversation of approximately 20-30
minutes each. Groups may draw or capture their ideas on paper table clothes or 3
x 5 cards.
3. After each round of conversation, each table or cluster‟s host remains, while others
travel to new clusters or tables, taking key ideas, themes and questions into the
next conversation.
4. Hosts encourage sharing, generation, and linking of main ideas.
5. In the third round, people may be directed to return to their original tables or
clusters to synthesize their discoveries – or to new tables or clusters for a third
conversation and linking of ideas.
6. Café often includes a period of sharing discoveries and insights in a whole group,
town meeting-style conversation where patterns can be identified, collective
knowledge grows, and possibilities for action emerge.
An online guide to World Café is available at www.theworldcafe.com
4
Adapted from Whole Systems Associates, 2002
32
How we used the café during the CASI review
Note: this session guide has been revised based on our experience during the workshop.
The café questions:

i. What is civil society in Vietnam?
ii. What is the relationship between civil society and poverty
reduction?
iii. Where/how is CASI contributing to civil society?
iv. What questions do you have about CASI?
Round one (30 min)

a. Participants come into the room and seat themselves at the tables (spread around so
that there are approx the same numbers at each table).
b. One CASI team person is the „host‟ and note taker for the table. Others from the
CASI team help with writing and collating cards.
c. The host asks the participants to do a quick „go round‟ for introductions.
d. They then begin discussing the first question – what is civil society in Vietnam?
e. The facilitators then gives instructions for moving to a new table
Round two (25 min)

a. The group introduce themselves.
b. The host briefly summarizes the discussions from the previous group and asks: did
you have a similar discussion? Did you raise any different points (5-10 min)
c. The facilitator will then read out the second question – what is the relation between
civil society and poverty reduction?
d. The group then discuss and share their ideas thus far in a second round.
e. The facilitators then give instructions for moving to a new table
Round three (25 min)

a. The host welcome the new group and asks them to introduce themselves
b. The host briefly summarizes the main points from the previous group‟s discussion,
and asks if their previous conversation was similar. What was different and how?
c. The host summarizes the main points on cards (10 min)
d. The facilitators then give out the next question: How is CASI contributing to CS?
e. At the end the host will summarize the main points raised and write these on cards.
f. The facilitators will then give instructions for moving to the „home‟ table
Round four (20min)

a. The host first asks: how did it go?
b. Participants then respond to: what questions do you have about CASI?
c. The host summarizes the conversation on cards, which will be collected and grouped.
33
5. The gallery walk and circle sharing

The gallery walk
During the gallery walk on the second afternoon, we used a modified form of circle
sharing (see below).
In the morning session, there were four working groups as shown in the table.
Working group sessions (morning)

Capacity building Advocacy Partnerships Gender
In the afternoon the groups were re-formed as shown in the next table.
Gallery walk grouping (afternoon)

Groups Capacity Advocacy Partnerships Gender
building
1
This meant that each group had members from all four working groups. It also meant
that the four different people had to be responsible for reporting back as they moved
round the circle.
Capacity building Advocacy Partnerships Gender
Round one Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Round two Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 Group3
Round three Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2
Round four Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1
34
Circle sharing
This is sometimes called the “Jigsaw” method because of the way in which it regroups
people. Circle sharing is linked to the use of small groups and is a way of sharing what
has happened in the small groups so that everyone has a chance to report back. It avoids
having report backs in plenary, without taking any longer than the common method of
one person reporting back to the plenary. As well as involving people more, it also uses
the premise that people absorb and remember better those things they have to talk
about themselves.
The main thing with circle sharing is to think things through beforehand so that the
numbers all work out. The ideal situation is to have 16 or 25 or 36 or 49 people etc i.e.
four groups of four, or five groups of five and so on. Taking the situation of 36 people:
the whole group breaks into six groups, using the names of different trees, for example.
They discuss what the topic is and come out with their conclusions. They make sure that
all members of the group understand the points that they have raised so that they are
each ready to report back. The facilitator then gives each member of the group a number
from one to six. This can be done verbally. But if you want to make sure of no muddles,
give each person a small piece of paper with his/her number on.
Once the group work is finished, lay out the flipcharts from each of the original groups in
a circle with a decent amount of space between each set of flipcharts. Then call all the
“ones” to the first of these flipcharts, it doesn‟t matter which. Then the “twos” to the next
set and so on. If it is the first time that the group is using this method, then you will need
to explain to each group (the ones, twos etc) that the person in their group who was
from the group that developed that particular set of flipcharts should report back to the
others.
How long to allow for the report backs is always a tricky question. It is a balance
between giving enough time for the person to report back properly plus some discussion
and making the exercise too long. What tends to happen is that initially the groups spend
longer at each station and then speed up. But sometimes it is the reverse of this. The
timing is one of those judgement calls that are an inherent part of any facilitation.
Where there is not a neat square root number of people, which is normally the case, then
one has to decide what size the two sets of groups should be. One essential tip is that
the first groups, i.e. the ones that do the discussing, should be more in number than the
report back groups. For example, imagine there are 30 people. This offers the possibility
of having 5 groups of 6 or 6 groups of 5 for the discussion. Go for the latter (6 groups of
5) because this will mean that for the report backs there will 5 groups of 6. If you go for
the former (5 groups of 6) then it will mean that for the report backs you will have more
groups than there are sets of flipcharts and so there will always be one group that is not
doing anything during the report backs. If you do find that you have done this by a
mistake then ask that group (which will happen in turns) to use the time discussing what
they have come across of interest in the other group report backs.
After the circle sharing it is sometimes appropriate to have a short plenary session in
which issues can come up amongst the whole group. This can be an opportunity for
people to raise questions, to comment on similarities or differences between the different
group report backs, or to offer conclusions. The circle sharing will often create a
momentum of discussion that it is a pity to lose.
35
6. Prioritizing recommendations
On day three of the review, participants were asked to consider the outputs from the
previous two days and to identify the „most critical‟ priorities.
Most critical was defined as follows:
 Will lead to measurable benefits for the poor, especially women and ethnic
minorities
 Is relevant across all CASI program
 Will promote program quality and learning and measurement
 Allow us to deliver on short term- and long-term commitments
 Addresses both internal and external changes
Instructions to the group

Individually
1. Each person should take 10-15 minutes to review the outputs from days one and two
and decide which recommendations are most „critical‟?
2. Some criteria for you to consider are:
 Will lead to measurable benefits for the poor, especially women and ethnic
minorities
 Is relevant across all CASI program
 Will promote program quality and learning and measurement
 Allow us to deliver on short term- and long-term commitments
 Addresses both internal and external changes
3. Also ask „what‟s missing?‟
4. Then list out the top two-three recommendations
At your table
5. Start by nominating a note taker
6. Go round the table – each person should offer her/his top recommendation
I believe this is a critical recommendation for CASI because…….
7. Ask questions for clarification but do not debate
8. Group the recommendations that are the similar
9. Then go around again until all recommendations are collected
10. Make a final list on a flip chart in two languages (so that we can all easily interact)
In plenary
11. Each person is given five votes (small stickers were provided)
12. You are to place your stickers alongside the five recommendations that seem most
important.
13. Before you begin, look across all the lists to see where there is agreement.
After the voting was completed, the facilitator should identify some of the patterns and
consistency that had emerged.
36
7. The search conference
The search conference technique is useful for both problem-solving and planning. It
is aimed towards multiple stakeholders of a system, and helps them develop mutual
awareness of their existing circumstances, their desired future, and how to get there. It
does so by drawing on their experiences and values and assembling their knowledge of
the system and its environment. The search conference is task-focused. Usually, it brings
together 60 to 80 people in one room or hundreds in parallel rooms. But it can also be
used successfully with small self-contained teams
The process relies on mutual learning among stakeholders as a catalyst for voluntary
action and follow-up.
How we used the search process during the CASI review

We drew on a small „slice‟ of the future process with the core team to explore questions
coming out of the review.
The purpose of the exercise was two-fold:
 To gather data (opinions) from among all team members about the review.
This was essentially a listening exercise, as participants were asked to clarify but
not to comment on, agree with or disagree with the answers.
 To synthesize key findings emerging from the synthesis and to report back on the
findings to the whole group.
The participants were asked to „pull out‟ the common threads and to only report
out on key features, not all the data collected. They were also asked to highlight
one idea that “they found interesting.”
The process we used

The set up
At a post-review meeting with Van Anh, Son, Thuy, Fiona and Graeme, we asked: what
do we want to get out of the two core meeting? It was agreed that we wanted to get
“commitment through action plans” and that, we also needed to make sure that we paid
careful attention to the workshop outputs as our starting point. The group then
formulated a set of questions to be answered by the core team before action planning.
These were:
8. What were the positive outcomes during the two and half day review?
9. What was missing from the meeting outcomes?
10. What should we do differently next time?
11. What are one or two specific examples of how well we worked together as a team
(either before or during the meeting)?
12. What did you get out of the meeting that will help you in your work?
13. What is your burning issue? (What big questions/concerns do you have following
on from the meeting?)
14. A number of different facilitation techniques were used during the workshop.
Which of these will you use in your work and why? (How confident do you feel?)
15. What skills do we collectively need as a team to further build our capacity?
37
The search
1. We began by forming two equal groups and assigning each person a number from
1 to 8.
2. Each person was then assigned one of the questions
1 5 1 5
3. The groups arranged themselves in two rows facing a
2 6 2 6
partner (as shown in the diagram)
3 7 3 7
4. Person #1 then asked #2 her question, and wrote down
4 8 4 8
the responses. Then #2 asked #1 her question.
5. Then the first row was asked to move to a new position
4 5 4 5
(as shown in the diagram).
1 6 1 6
6. In this round, #1 asks #6 her question and vice versa.
2 7 2 7
7. The process is repeated (four times) until everyone had
3 8 3 8
answered all questions.
8. Then each #1, #2, #3, #4 etc sat together to sythesise the data
Instructions for snthesizing the search

1. First read through all your answers and begin to synthesize commonalities and
points of difference
2. Then work with your partner to identify:
• „patterns‟ (where there seems to be general agreement in the room)
• „interesting‟ outlying comments
2. Prepare a brief report back
• Our question was…
• There was general agreement that…
• Some other comments were….
• A comment that we found interesting…
• In conclusion…..
More background about the search conference

Flower, J, 1995, A Conversation with Marvin Weisbord, Future Search: A Power Tool for Building
Healthier Communities, Healthcare Forum Journal, 38: 3, May-June 1995,
http://www.well.com/~bbear/weisbord.html
Future search brings people from all walks of life into the same conversation - those with
resources, expertise, formal authority and need. They meet for 16 hours spread across
three days. People tell stories about their past, present and desired future. Through
dialogue they discover their common ground. Only then do they make concrete action
plans.
Each search conference involves the following steps, which can be adapted locally where
required:
1. Participants are requested to give their views of trends in society as a whole.
38
2. Responses are combined to provide a picture of ongoing changes in their

environment over which they have little direct control.
3. Participants look at the development of their own organisation or community, and
make worthwhile judgements with respect to any aspirations.
4. Constraints of restricted resources and existing structure and culture are then
reviewed.
5. The group formulate strategies for planned change.
6. The group deliberate the steps necessary to initiate the agreed-upon changes.
Three characteristics of this process appear to enhance creativity:

 The encouragement of a new and broader perspective by looking initially at the
environment rather than the system involved.
 Focussing on desired futures rather than on current constraints.
 The requirement for stakeholders to confront and synthesize conflicting views
into a mutually satisfying design of and plan for the future
Note the distinction between this approach of visualising where your world is going and
then considering how best to fit into, and a more standard creative problem-solving
process where you choose a particular future you want, and then try to see how to
achieve it. This method „goes with the flow‟ rather than trying to direct the way the flow
happens.
The principles
The underlying goal of a future search conference is to get people onto common ground.
That is what you have to do if you really want to make a breakthrough. There are three main
principles in the idea:
 First, get a cross section of the whole system in the room - as diverse a group of
interested parties as possible. Start with a significant cross section of the
community.
 Second, don't solve problems or manage conflict, but put the issue in a global
context and focus on the possibilities of the future.
 Third, do this in such a way that people manage their work themselves, so that
they take responsibility for what they think and do, what they feel and say, and
ultimately what they agree to.
Who's necessary?
Include people with authority and people who are powerless, people with resources, and
people who are poor; people who have skills and knowledge but no place to use them;
people who are affected by this issue and have nobody to tell; and people who are
responsible for the issue, have done the best they can, and are not satisfied with what they
have been doing.
Invite the gatekeepers (politicians) but make sure that you also invite people who can do
things, who have authority, who can act themselves and mobilize others. You need a critical
mass of people who, if they chose, could do something new in your community.
39
Some people agree to show up, then don't. Others send people in their place. You can never
tell for certain who really is going to be necessary and helpful. But when you have this kind
of diversity, each person really does make a difference. Each person opens the door to sixty
more possibilities. Each person brings not only a new perspective on the issue but a new
possibility for action. Go for diversity over expertise:
I've given up on expertise. I'm working with commitment, and with enlarged
understanding, which is where I think commitment comes from. I'm working
with trust, with the kinds of issues that are not at all soft. They are the
hardest issues of all. The numbers are what's soft. There is no correlation
between the numbers and what people will actually do (Marvin Weisbord).
40
Attachment III
Evaluation processes
Day one
Each participant was asked write two cards
First card (+)
 What is working well? What did you most appreciated about day one?
Second card (- / Δ)
 What is not working? What needs to change on day two?
These cards were collated and synthesized over night and then discussed with the
group in the morning. In particular, the facilitators pointed out how they were
adjusting process and content in response to the feedback. For example, the
participants called for more time for small group discussions and for clearer
instructions about the time allotted to group discussions. Accordingly the instructions
for each group were ‘tightened up.’
Day two – each participant was asked to place a dot somewhere on the wall chart
below:
I am feeling
very positive
I’m not feeling

positive
Today’s outputs Today’s outputs

have not helped me have helped me to
understand CASI understand CASI
Day five – the team evaluation conducted by the core team is described above in the
futures search section
41
Evaluation sheet (for all participants in the two and half day meeting)
1. Please give a rating for each session, where 1 = unsatisfactory and 5 = excellent
Individual Sessions 1 2 3 4 5
Monday
a. Opening address by Dr Giao – Civil Society in Vietnam: trends and
development
b. Knowledge fair : Visual presentation of CASI program
What is CASI / how does it work and why?
c. Cafe discussion: Civil society development in Vietnam and CASI role
d. Synthesis of day one and feedback session
Tuesday
e. Opening feedback session
f. Working group discussions
i. Advocacy: are we giving a voice to poor people and ethnic minority
groups? Can we do more?
ii. Capacity building: are new skills being practised? What difference
does it make?
iii. Effective and collaborative partnership: how do we move forward
together?
iv. Gender: what should we do to make our work and impact more
gender-responsive?
g. Gallery walk: information exchange in groups
h. Feedback session, recommendations and priorities
Wednesday
i. Opening feedback session
j. How CASI should change in the future? Reviewing and prioritizing
recommendations and ideas.
k. Synthesis and next step
l. Overall facilitation of meeting and plenary session

m. Small group facilitation
n. Logistics and conference set up
o. The CARE staff listened to outside perspectives without dominating the

conversations
p. Overall rating for the meeting
42
2. The session I found most useful was (please also say „why‟)
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
3. The session I found least useful was (please say „why‟)

.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
4. I feel that the outputs will be useful / will not be useful to the CASI program (1-5) because:
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
5. I feel satisfied / unsatisfied with my level of participation because:
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
6. What should be done differently next time?
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
7. Any other comments
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Please tick one of the boxes:

[ ] I work for CARE Vietnam [ ] I am a CASI partner [ ] Other
43

CASI Mid-Term Review Final Report May-10-2007

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CASI Mid-Term Review Final Report May-10-2007

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CARE INTERNATIONAL IN VIETNAM

Civil Action for Socio-economic Inclusion in Natural Resource Management

Report of the CASI Mid-term Review

Prepared for the CASI Core Management Team

Graeme Storer (May 2007)

CASI Mid-term Review

There are four attachments:

Planning for the mid-term review p.1

Objectives and anticipated outputs p.1

2 The review meeting p.3

The agenda flow p.3

The first day – civil society and CASI p.3

Civil society in Vietnam, Expectations, The knowledge fair,

The second day – cross cutting themes p.8

Exploring cross-cutting themes & Overlapping issues

The third day – prioritizing recommendations p.10

Prioritizing recommendations & Big ideas

3 Reflective practice p.13

5 Final reflections p.16

II CASI theory of Change p.24

III Learning resources p.25

IV Evaluation processes p.41

1 Agenda for the mid-term review p.4

2 Civil society and poverty reduction p.6

3 Emerging recommendations from day one p.7

4 Ethnic minorities and poverty reduction p.16

CASI mid-term review

Objectives and anticipated outputs

Specific objectives and anticipated outputs were defined as follows:

2. To build a common understanding of the relation between civil society and

6. To critically examine efforts to mainstream gender in all CASI components

2. The review meeting

The agenda flow

The agenda flow is summarized in Table 1.

The first day – civil society and CASI

Civil society in Vietnam

What is civil society?

Table 1. Agenda for the mid-term review

Wed Opening reflections and feedback on day two

Thurs CASI core team reflections

Fri Reporting out to team members on action plans

Clarity on civil society and

What will make this

Definition of future direction

The knowledge fair

The knowledge fair – where is civil society?

Table 2 Civil society and poverty reduction

Why Civil Society?

What role is CASI playing?

Table 3 Emerging recommendations from day one

More clarity about CASI

Sharing and learning across CARE

What is CASI doing to build internal capacity?

Building an enabling environment

Who CASI works with

The second day – cross cutting theme working groups

Exploring cross-cutting themes

 Review CARE policies and procedures

b. There needs to be greater emphasis on program quality and learning

c. There needs to be greater emphasis on measurement and demonstrating

d. CASI must address both external and internal changes.

The third day