Review of CRN

• To review the capacity, competence and knowledge of CRN and its collaborating partners concerning demobilisation and reintegration; children’s psychosocial needs as well as on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
  
  
• Regular control of recipients of funds.
  
  
• Input for the consideration of further funding.
  
  
• Learning in MFA, NORAD and the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Kampala (RNEK)

The Review is presented in two parts.

Part 1 includes information gathered in the course of the field mission to DRC, Rwanda and Uganda, conducted in the period April 15-29 2002, by Paul George, Heine Steinkopf and Inger K. Stoll, and recommendations from the Team. The field mission followed from a previous desk study conducted in the period March-April 2002 in Oslo by Ingvar Theo Olsen and Anne Hertzberg at the Centre for Health and Social Development (HeSo).

The HeSo study is presented as Part 2 of this report. The HeSo study reviewed the CRN Programme and placed special emphasis on administrative, managerial and organisational issues. It provided an assessment of the efficiency of CRN and its partner organisations, an overview and discussion of CRN as an implementing organisation, as well as a detailed summary of all projects and programmes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

We publish the entire summary. We wish to comment on some of the points made. CRN’s comments are in blue fonts.

Part 1– field mission report

Christian Relief Network:

• The Review Team concludes that the overall impact of the CRN programme has been positive. CRN’s achievements are impressive and its outputs compare favourably with the norms for humanitarian aid in general. It has proven to be a reliable channel of cooperation and funding between the NORAD and the MFA, local governments in the Great Lakes and the implementing partners.
  
  
• The projects visited are highly relevant to the commitment of Norwegian development cooperation to contribute to the improvement of economic, social and political conditions with particular emphasis on human rights. The welfare issues of children should be clearly articulated in all related projects.
  
  
• Nevertheless, some shortcomings in the management structure and operational “culture” of CRN and its partners have been noted. These draw into question the sustainability of programmes and the ability of the three organisations to enhance the impact of their efforts.
  
  
• In particular, neither CRN nor its partners seek to coordinate their efforts adequately with other agencies nor to cooperate with them in a structured way. Their interventions would also gain from a more integrated approach to service delivery (for instance to provide sanitary facilities when rehabilitating social infrastructure). Second, there is an overemphasis on individuals as lead actors in programme development and project management. Little effort is being made to build up the capacity of support staff to provide back up should the present leadership leave or be incapacitated. As a result, CRN, and particularly GMAC, are vulnerable to sudden changes in circumstances and the sustainability of the programme must be considered fragile.
  
  
• All of the CEPAC and GMAC projects concentrate on short-term results. CRN explains this in terms of seeing its role as a “temporary” catalyst contributing to a broader stakeholder effort to produce lasting change. However, the Review Team feels that CRN’s partners miss important opportunities to enhance their value by the lack of coordination and cooperation with other agencies working in the same fields. There seems to be little effort to build on successful activities to develop more substantive, longer-term development oriented projects.
  
  
• CRN and its partners need to develop the capacity to monitor and report on the full range of effects stemming from their interventions in order to learn from their experiences and modify their strategic approach to project development.
  
  CRN communicates well with the public and its funders through an updated website.

Several of the projects have been carried out in areas and at times where other aid organizations have been absent. The fact that we have been able to work independently and directly towards our local partners has lead to a most efficient and focused project administration. This has been our strength. However, we also realize that it can become our weakness, and we take notice of the criticism. CRN, together with our partners in the field, has increased our coordination with other agencies working in the field, e.g. through OCHA, embassies and direct coordination with relevant partners.

The CRN implementing partners reviewed in the context of the study were: Communauté des Églises de Pentecôte en Afrique Centrale (CEPAC), Goma, DRC; and “Give Me A Chance” (GMAC), Uganda.

Communauté des Églises de Pentecôte en Afrique Centrale (CEPAC):

• CEPAC is an efficient and effective project organisation with a committed and visionary leadership and competent staff. The organisation represents a solid basis for developing longer term projects.
  
  
• The projects deliver impressive immediate results but have not focused on developing a longer-term sustainable impact. This is understandable as funds from Norway are given on an ad hoc basis for short term projects for humanitarian assistance.
  
  
• CEPAC could build on its strong relationship with the authorities to help other agencies gain entry to the North Kivu region and make additional contributions to peace building and recovery that would benefit a much wider community.
  
  To improve their impact, CEPAC’s interventions should be closely coordinated with activities by other support agents in the region such as NGOs, churches, UN agencies and local authorities. The Review Team recognise that such coordination has been difficult in recent years as international NGOs have not maintained a consistent presence in the region. CRN should play a proactive role in reaching out to the NGO community to identify opportunities for greater cooperation.
  
  Little is being done to address the hiv/aids epidemic.
  
  
• Malaria is a very serious problem in the area. CEPAC should liaise with other organisations in the region to file an application to Geneva for funds from the Global Fund For Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria and to try and access Roll Back Malaria funds.
  
  
• Rehabilitation of infrastructure should include latrines and hand washing facilities.
  
  There is a need for a structured approach to teaching adults about the value of education for girls. Consideration should also be given to finding donors to provide bursaries to enable children from the most impoverished families to attend school.
  
  Projects should deal proactively with discrimination against the girl child.
  
  Child rights, and especially their right to participation and their right to expression, should be clearly articulated in all projects dealing with education.
  
  CEPAC could build on its religious foundations to provide more effective and relevant support to trauma victims in the community.
  
  
• The community reintegration programmes need to be supplemented by integrated income generating projects to provide employment for the returnees.
  
  There is a low level of reporting from CEPAC to CRN of non-financial issues, and little emphasis on results and longer-term effects of the projects. CRN argues that an extensive level of verbal reporting, which was not revealed to the Review Team, provides a solid foundation of information on the local situation. Recipients of humanitarian funds should change their reporting procedures to include outcome assessments.
  
   
  
  All projects in cooperation with CEPAC have been carried out under most difficult conditions with war and ethnic conflicts in the areas where we have been operating. Few, if any, other organizations have been operating in these areas during the project period. We have worked hard focusing on rebuilding health clinics and schools and on helping refugees with the most basic things to start their lives over again. We have had our restraints, but we wish to use the recommendations of the report as a working tool in our further efforts in the area.

Give Me A Chance (GMAC):

• GMAC has committed leadership and competent staff. Its projects meet well-targeted needs and achieve their objectives. However, GMAC concentrates on short-term results and has not tried to develop the kind of long-term programmes that could have a broader impact.
• 
  
  Without a strategic, long-term, perspective the projects risk becoming less relevant and achieving lower sustainability than could have been the case had GMAC been more concerned with establishing strategic alliances with relevant partners and advocating for institutional changes.
• 
  
  The Kyanjuki transit centre should not be given further Norwegian funding. The dwindling number of people coming in from the bush does not justify sustaining this operation in its present form.
• 
  
  GMAC should consider moving its experienced counselling staff to other areas of Uganda where their skills might soon be in demand, for example to the West Nile region.
• 
  
  Other arrangements to treat returning rebels and abductees could be explored, for example, developing mobile counselling groups to visit and treat returnees in their communities.
• 
  
  The child resettlement and prison babies project is doing valuable work in helping detained juveniles return to their families and addressing the needs of babies in prison. . However, the project is mainly treating the symptoms of a much deeper rooted social problem and is probably not making a sustainable impact.
  
  GMAC should develop an integrated approach to the issues that underlie the phenomenon of children in conflict with the law.
• 
  
  In keeping with the goal of meeting the “best interest of the child”, projects should emphasise children’s right to participate in decisions that affect their lives and their right to expression.
• 
  
  NORAD should continue to fund the child resettlement and prison babies project for an interim period of one year. If GMAC fails to demonstrate that the project is more than a social welfare project, then NORAD should consider whether support is appropriate and relevant.
• 
  
  The prison babies project component is not sustainable as a NORAD funded project. GMAC should seek the support of local church groups to continue its work with babies in prison.

The Kyanjuki transit center was to be closed down during the summer of 2002 according to CRN’s project plan. The demobilization project has been ended. However, it is continued in a new project finance by the NMFA aimed at negotiating with “the hard core” of the ADF leaders in order to secure the fragile peace that has been achieved.

Part 2 – desk study

The administrative capacity of CRN and its local partners seems satisfactory; innovative computer systems for follow up are developed. Although not fully assessed, the CRN organisation and its partners seem cost-effective. The relatively low share administrative costs, particularly in Norway, may serve as an indication of this. Long-term effects have not been assessed, but short-term effects are reported quantitatively and qualitatively from each project. There is little doubt that a high number of people have received humanitarian support, but the costs vary greatly from project to project.

The financial accountability on the Norwegian side seems to be in order. Most of the expenses are accounted for and audited locally, although the audits are carried out by the local branch of an international auditing firm, and are thus accepted by MFA and NORAD. No indications of irregularities have been found from this limited review.

The criteria for results, achievements and effectiveness in projects as described in documents and interviews appear to be highly quantitative, but with a sensitivity for more qualitative aspects. According to the criteria defined by CRN many of the projects have achieved more than 100% goal attainment. When this is not obtained the obstacles are well documented. A key prerequisite for success may be the strong commitment by the CRN leadership and their partners, but also the size of the organisation, which enables it to act on short notice and have a solid overview of activities. Another factor may be a focus on projects as short time events that do not allow the construction of permanent organisation infrastructures.

The strength of the CRN Director is his strong vision, his orientation towards results and his political insight, not to mention his genuine engagement for the people he wants to reach. The weakness may be that it is difficult for others to follow up the work if he were to end his work. However, it is also stressed that others could follow his principles of working.

A weakness of CRN and partners seem to be the strong dependency on a few individuals, which makes the small organisations vulnerable and may give difficulties for others to follow up key tasks if needed. There are few relationships with other international agencies. Viewed from the outside, the special knowledge and experiences of other key organisations working with assistance to children and youth in difficult circumstances are not explicitly integrated into these projects.

The organisation and the projects may benefit from closer technical collaboration with other international agencies, particularly in areas where their own capacity or competence is more limited. Although this has not been assessed in details it could include areas like children, children’s rights, re-integration of abducted children, but also refugee related issues and general development aid issues. An area of concern to be followed up is the popular base both in Uganda, but maybe even more importantly in DRC.

There are a number of lessons to be drawn from the work of CRN and its partners, particularly the focus on short term achievements; the benefits of a small organisation, which can operate projects that actually have an end; the ability to use IT technology for efficient management; just to mention a few.