IRC Strategy 2015–2020 - Microsoft

IRC Strategy 2015–2020 Executive Summary

January 2015 | Rescue.org

IRC Strategy 2015–2020 (Cont’d)

2

Contents 1. Introduction

3

2. Mission, Vision & Objectives

4

3. Infrastructure & Support

13

4. Action Planning

16

Rescue.org


3

Introduction This document summarizes the rationale, goals and initiatives that will define the direction of the IRC’s work over the next five years, both in the U.S. and around the world. The IRC has never been more needed by those we serve, or more challenged by the circumstances in which we work. We are being asked to respond to larger, longer-lasting, more complex crises. Meanwhile, there is new pressure to meet the changing needs of crisis-affected populations and satisfy the demands of donors. At this time of growing instability and rising concerns, it is not just beneficial, but absolutely necessary, to define more clearly who we serve, where we work and, critically, what defines success and how we can best achieve it. This document summarizes our aspirations, which are deliberately bold. It first defines our mission - who we serve, where we work, and what we want to achieve for the people we serve - and our vision of IRC as an organization. It then defines the objectives required to make the vision a reality, and the infrastructure – human, financial, and technological – needed to support the strategy.

Rescue.org


4

Mission, Vision & Objectives Who we serve. The IRC currently serves those directly affected by conflict or disaster, such as refugees, as well as those indirectly affected by the concomitant breakdown of services and markets. The majority of the IRC’s work outside the U.S. now supports people indirectly affected by crisis. We are therefore updating our definition of who we serve. Instead of saying we help “refugees and others,” we will say:

The IRC serves people forced to flee from war, conflict and disaster and the host communities that support them, as well as those who remain within their homes and communities. Where we work. We currently lack clear guidelines specifying which countries (or which areas within countries) we should enter, and when we should leave. As a consequence, we are failing to focus adequately on sustainable programs, we do not have clear exit strategies, and we risk spreading ourselves too thin. In the future, alongside our work in the U.S., the IRC will enter what we call “crisis places,” defined by all three of the following characteristics: § Places experiencing, or at great risk of experiencing, severe conflict or disaster. § Places where conflict or disaster has caused a breakdown of basic services resulting in poverty and exclusion (as measured by levels of income, health, safety, education and oppression). § Places where the state or civil society lacks the capacity, will or legitimacy to meet people’s basic needs and improve outcomes. We will exit countries, or places within countries, when: § The conflict or disaster has passed and the threat of new or resurgent crises has receded and; § There is sustained improvement in outcomes and; § The state or civil society has the capacity, will and legitimacy to sustain progress and manage risks.

What defines our success? Success for all of us is about making a tangible difference in people’s lives. However, the outcomes we seek are not currently codified in specific and practical terms. Without clear measures of success, it is impossible to track progress or fulfill our potential as an organization.

On the basis of the discussions during the Strategy Refresh, we came to define success as our ability to help people to survive, recover and gain control of their future.

Rescue.org


5

We will measure success against the number of people who see improvement in the following five outcomes: § § § § §

Safety from physical, sexual and psychological harm; Health reduced risk of ill health, and better chances of recovery from ill health; Education in terms of literacy and numeracy, as well as foundational, vocational and life skills; Income in terms of basic material needs and income and asset growth; Power in terms of influence over the decisions that affect their lives.

Our aim is to improve outcomes for people in crisis-affected places, particularly for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged. Given the disparity in outcomes by gender, we want to narrow inequalities in these five outcomes between men and women, boys and girls. The priority given to these outcomes will vary to a significant degree depending on the context of the crisis. In disaster1 settings—from the first 72 hours to at least the first month—we will focus on interventions and outcomes that support immediate survival: safety, health and income. In U.S. Programs, we will focus on income and education. Further details follow in the section on Strategic Objectives.

Mission Statement Our enduring mission can be summarized as:

The IRC helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover and gain control of their future. Vision Over the next five years, the IRC aims to become an operational leader through our work with partners and clients in the humanitarian field, and a thought leader that shapes public and humanitarian policies and practice. Our vision can be summarized as:

The IRC will lead the humanitarian field by implementing high-impact, cost-effective programs for people affected by crisis, and by using our learning and experience to shape policy and practice. This vision reflects the four key ways in which the IRC differentiates itself from its peers: § A sharp focus on places affected by crisis, as compared with many peer organizations that focus on poverty alleviation (and therefore program in double or triple the number of countries). § A high risk appetite to program in remote and hostile places, with a willingness to experiment and fail in order to learn. § A depth of knowledge of what works in the humanitarian field, with the intent to further develop our knowledge of local contexts. § The trusted relationships and networks we have at all levels, from the field to global capitals, which allows us to program in tough places and to influence policy and practice.

1

The U.N. defines a disaster as a “serious disruption of the functioning of a society, causing widespread human, material, or environmental losses, which exceed the ability of the affected society to cope using its own resources.” This is broken down into natural and man-made disasters.

Rescue.org


6

Strategic Objectives To achieve greater impact in our international work and in the U.S., we have developed the following strategic objectives: § § § § §

Improve the effectiveness of our interventions. Ensure the best use of resources. Increase the scale and reach of our work, knowledge and expertise. Increase the speed and timeliness of our support. Improve our responsiveness to the demands of our clients and communities.

These five objectives are supported by a sixth which is critical to achieving success: § Investment in the research, development and demonstration of new interventions and delivery models, which creates knowledge that influences policy and practice. The rest of this section of the summary specifies what we are trying to achieve with each of these objectives, both in our international work and in the U.S.

Objective 1: Improve the effectiveness of our interventions. What are we trying to achieve? We want to improve the effectiveness of our work in three ways. First, all our work will become either evidence-based or evidence-generating; that is, work founded on, or building toward, evidence that demonstrates a positive change in an outcome attributable to a specific intervention. Second, our program design should be based on evidence but tailored to a specific context. We therefore want to improve our knowledge of local contexts, and ensure that our programs and operations are adapted based on this improved knowledge and understanding. Third, our programs need to be implemented effectively and improved continuously. We will carefully measure actual results, comparing them to the outcomes we expect, and ensure that we use data to improve project design and implementation, while holding ourselves accountable for results.

How will we achieve it? We will become evidence-based through the introduction of an Outcomes and Evidence Framework in strategic planning, business development and program design. The framework will define the outcomes we seek, present a theory of how we achieve them, and indicate how certain we are that the outcome can be achieved with different interventions. We aim to scale up interventions that have robust evidence of positive impact on people’s health, income, education, power, or safety in crisis-affected states. For example, of our current program areas, cash programming has evidence of positive impact across several outcomes. Conversely, where there is a dearth of evidence, we will pilot and test new interventions and conduct impact evaluations on mature interventions. We will pilot and evaluate a number of tools to assess the contexts in which we operate, including local power dynamics and social networks; social and cultural norms; and economic and environmental issues (all of which can affect the way people use services and drive conflict). We will pay particular attention to gender analysis and the opinions of our clients and partners. We will develop a set of core indicators that align with the Outcomes and Evidence Framework and will set country and sector performance targets. We will roll out a data platform that enables easier data

Rescue.org


7

entry, including through mobile collection and a simple dashboard, in order to better track critical information and disaggregate data by sex and age. We will change the way the organization uses data by providing tools and guidance to improve data quality and to encourage a shift from monitoring of action to monitoring for action. Improved measurement will be the foundation for sharper accountability of outcomes. In our U.S. Programs, we will improve our effectiveness by better measuring outcomes, collecting client feedback, and developing impact evaluations to assess the benefit of longer-term support for clients.

How will we measure success? Our success will be measured by: § The proportion of our work that is either evidence-based or evidence-generating; § Whether country programs and U.S. offices have achieved their targets for improved outcomes, including the reduction of gender inequalities; § Whether pilot projects on context analysis are effective, with subsequent objectives for roll out to be set, including the proportion of country strategies based on good quality context analysis; § The proportion of our projects that are applying core indicators and using the data platform.

Objective 2: Ensure the best use of resources. What are we trying to achieve? In a world of increased instability and constrained resources, we will debate the efficiency of different interventions and the value of different outcomes with greater urgency. We want to increase our impact as an organization and as a sector in four ways: § Economy—buying inputs of appropriate quality at the right price; § Cost-Efficiency—converting inputs into outputs in an efficient way; § Cost-Effectiveness—converting outputs into outcomes in an effective way; § Equity—distributing the benefits fairly (by gender, for example). We will also explore methods for conducting cost-benefit analysis, which involves placing a monetary value on benefits.

How will we do this? To strengthen cost analysis in our programs, we will insist that all proposals include a clear statement of the number of clients to be reached per outcome (disaggregated at least by gender and age), and we will integrate discussions of cost analysis into the proposal development process. We will also develop cost benchmarks for each intervention category under our Outcomes and Evidence Framework, and we will use these benchmarks to justify cost in the proposal development process. Until clear benchmarks are in place for specific interventions, we will require any proposal with a cost-perclient of more than 100 USD2 to include a documented explanation. We will include cost-efficiency information in all final reports. Results of cost analysis will be shared with staff to help inform programming decisions. We will also use our knowledge of cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness to become a leader in the best use of resources

2

The current median cost per client is $46; with a $100 threshold, 31 percent of current projects would fall above the threshold.

Rescue.org


8

in humanitarian settings, and to advocate with donors and implementers alike for more cost transparency. We will use this approach for both our International and U.S. Programs.

How will we measure success? We will measure success by developing indicators on economy, cost-efficiency, cost-effectiveness and equity of our programs and portfolio.

Objective 3: Increase the scale and reach of our work, knowledge and expertise. What are we trying to achieve? At a time of growing demand, we want to increase the scale and reach of evidence-based interventions, whether by the IRC directly, or with partners. Currently, we are committed to responding to two concurrent large-scale emergency situations. In reality, we have been active in four emergencies for 18 of the last 24 months; therefore, we believe the IRC should have the capability to respond to four large-scale emergencies simultaneously. We will increase the proportion of people served so that we reach 10 percent of the total number of affected people in any given emergency. We will reach 65 percent of affected people within specifically targeted areas within the first four weeks of an emergency, and 90 percent of affected people in targeted areas beyond four weeks. In protracted crises and post-crisis recovery settings, we will set country-specific targets for expanding our reach. These will be set out in Strategy Action Plans for country programs, aligned with the Outcomes and Evidence Framework. In all settings, we want to increase scale by working more closely with partners. To prepare for emergencies, we will develop three strategic partners for each watch-list country. In addition, each country will set sector-specific targets expanding their partnering activity for an on-going aid response. In the U.S., we will seek to increase our share of resettled refugees from 12 percent to 15 percent and increase the number of IRC-supported clients who have migrated due to conflict or violence.

How will we achieve this? We will achieve these targets by: § Increasing the roster of trained emergency responders to 600 people worldwide—a 12-fold increase— in addition to technical personnel, such as medical staff and water and sanitation engineers, who will respond in a surge capacity; § Strengthening the disaster preparedness and emergency-response capacity of IRC country and regional offices to take leading roles in emergency response, and to take ownership of small- and medium-size emergencies; § Doubling the size of the Emergency Response Team to support the IRC country and regional offices in their expanded roles; § Focusing our advocacy efforts by pressing for an effective humanitarian response generally and in specific emergencies, by raising awareness of key needs, and by influencing local policy makers.

Rescue.org


9

To scale up our work in protracted crises and post-crisis recovery, we will: § Focus more on working with local actors in order to reach more people than the IRC could by working in isolation. § Focus on interventions that are cost-efficient and more amenable to large-scale deployment (for example, through task-shifting). To increase our share of refugees resettled in the U.S., we will expand the IRC’s geographical footprint through affiliates, sub-offices and office relocations. We will also seek to diversify our funding through regional fundraising hubs and social enterprise models that expand services by charging fees. Advocacy will enable effective programs to reach more people by encouraging other organizations to adopt evidence-based interventions; by securing the funding or access that underpins aid operations; and by securing national and local government policy changes, such as increased funding for health care or changes to laws that affect gender-based violence.

How will we measure success? We will measure success by our progress toward our targets for increasing the proportion of people we serve in emergencies, and through our real-time evaluations of emergency work. Following the establishment of a baseline, we will quantify the number of people we reach through the measurement framework, and we will determine whether countries meet the targets set out in their Strategy Action Plans. In our U.S. Programs, we will measure success by the share of refugees we resettle successfully, and by the number of conflict- and violence-affected migrants we work with.

Objective 4: Increase the speed and timeliness of our support. What are we trying to achieve? At present, while we are able to be on the ground within 72 hours of a disaster, services often begin two to three weeks later because we undertake work to diagnose needs and identify which services to prioritize. Our new aim is to deploy services essential to survival within 72 hours. In protracted crises and post-crisis recovery, situations are fluid; the IRC must quickly adapt to deteriorating situations or improving ones. We aim to provide sustained support beyond the peak of the crisis, adapt to new shocks and pressures, and withdraw in a timely manner as local actors become more capable of providing basic public services. In U.S. Programs, the current support of three-to-six months does not provide the most vulnerable refugees with the sustained help they need to integrate effectively. Building on the work of some offices, our aim is to extend the services offered to refugees who require long-term support to 24 months and beyond.

How will we achieve this? The IRC will create a Rapid Intervention Team that focuses on immediate survival. The team will focus primarily on health interventions, including water and sanitation, some safety interventions, and cash transfer programs (along with non-food items). The IRC will support the Rapid Intervention Team by better pre-positioning supplies, and by establishing cash distribution networks and fast-start financing to enable rapid deployment of services.

Rescue.org


10

The Rapid Intervention Team will work alongside a Rapid Assessment Team that will undertake diagnostic work to determine what services are required beyond the initial four-week survival phase. After the crucial first four weeks, the teams will form a Merged Implementation Team. In post-crisis settings, we will focus on building capacity to understand the context and diagnose changing needs and circumstances; shortening the time between identification of needs; securing funding; and implementing solutions and clearer criteria and accountability for exiting countries as part of a Strategy Action Plan. In U.S. Programs, we will build the case for extending case management to 18 months for all clients, and 24 months or longer for the most vulnerable, by evaluating the impact of extended support.

How will we measure success? To track success, we will collect data on the response times for each intervention from our real-time evaluations of emergency work. Timely exit will be hard to measure initially. We will therefore measure our preparedness for timely exit by determining the number of existing programs able to respond to new crises within an appropriate time frame, and the number of Strategy Action Plans able to incorporate effective transition and exit criteria. For U.S. Programs, we will evaluate the impact of extended case management on clients and communities over a three-year period.

Objective 5: Improve our responsiveness to the demands of our clients and communities. What are we trying to achieve? We want to make our work more responsive to the aspirations of the clients and communities we serve, both in our international work and U.S. Programs. This goal reflects the value we place on local leadership and the transference of power and accountability from donors to clients.

How will we achieve this? We will seek to transfer maximum power to clients by giving them cash directly. This is also an effective way of achieving other outcomes—enabling people to generate income and improve health and safety, for example. Because there is a weaker evidence base in other aspects involving client choice and participation, we will pilot a range of methods that will include: § Involvement in program design and Strategy Action Plans; § The development and publication of satisfaction surveys and other forms of feedback from clients and partners; § More choice by communities over the use of resources and social accountability tools. All of these approaches can be applied for situations in which IRC is the direct service provider, as well as for those in which services are provided by local actors. The aim is to ensure that the people and programs providing services are held accountable, and the results of their work are more transparent. We will continue to ensure that our support of local state and civil-society institutions is driven by their needs and aspirations. We will develop a collaborative approach to assessing the technical and organizational capacities of our partners, in order to provide capacity development tailored to their objectives.

Rescue.org


11

In U.S. Programs, we will pilot models of case management that are more client centered. This will require clients to be more active partners in setting goals, developing plans and personalizing service. We will build on models created by U.S. offices with the best community partnerships and spread this approach across the network.

How will we measure success? We will expect each country program to set targets for scaling up cash transfers as part of their Strategy Action Plans. We will develop ways to measure roll outs of pilot programs promoting client choice and participation. Client and partner feedback surveys will enable comparison across time and benchmarking between programs.

Objective 6: Invest in the research, development and demonstration of new interventions and delivery models and use this knowledge to influence policy and practice. What are we trying to achieve? Despite the extraordinary commitment and experience of staff, the humanitarian field is held back by the lack of evidence of what works. The IRC wants to lead the field in three ways: § Along with continuously improving all our programs, we propose to achieve a small number of breakthroughs that make a substantial difference to the safety, health, income, education and power of the people we serve. § We want to build a more comprehensive evidence base of what works. At present, there are only 45 impact evaluations in crisis-affected situations, compared with over 2,400 in more stable low- or middle-income contexts. § We want to become the knowledge hub for the humanitarian field, disseminating information to practitioners and policy makers in a compelling and accessible form, and pushing policy makers and donors to adopt evidence-based interventions.

How will we achieve this? By concentrating resources on a limited number of problems, and drawing on a range of skills and disciplines through a defined IRC method, we believe we can overcome some of the barriers to innovation. The work of the proposed R&D lab would be focused on three components: Borrowing, adapting and inventing solutions. We will continue to borrow ideas that have worked in more stable contexts. This means identifying the 10 most impactful intervention models with strong evidence from stable contexts, then conducting rigorous program monitoring or evaluation across three contexts per model. We will also take interventions and adapt them significantly to address the challenge of working in crisisaffected settings. Even when there is strong evidence that an intervention will work, how an intervention is delivered is often the critical challenge. We will therefore design new ways of delivering interventions where there are critical delivery problems, such as: § § § § §

Rescue.org

How to deliver cash within 72 hours to everyone affected in an emergency; How to immunize the 23 million children currently not covered; How to deliver quality education in crisis-affected settings; How to change early child feeding and development practices; How to increase the uptake of family-planning practices.


12

We will need to rethink our interventions in more radical ways in some areas; for example, we have taken some of the best programs and adapted them, but we have not yet seen the scale of change in outcomes that would make a real difference for people. We will generate and test ideas that will lead to five breakthrough outcomes, such as: § Reducing household violence against women and children; § Increasing foundational skills essential for coping, reading and working from age three through adolescence; § Making children functionally literate within one year; § Increasing women’s access and control over resources; § Increasing income for all youth affected by crisis in urban settings. Testing and evaluating programs more quickly and comprehensively. A critical part of effective research and development (R&D) is rapid iteration: the capacity to fail at small-scale and low-cost, capture the learning quickly, and redesign the solution. As part of the development of new solutions, we will find ways of quickly prototyping and testing solutions, as well as conducting assessments that demonstrate proof of concept, before moving toward more expensive and robust evaluations. The culmination of the testing process should be an impact evaluation. The IRC is currently conducting 14 impact evaluations; our aim would be to increase our capacity in this area significantly over the five-year period. Sharing knowledge of what works to encourage systematic learning and improving. To ensure that practitioners and policy makers use results to scale what works, we will document and transparently communicate results and costs, both positive and negative, throughout the R&D process. We will engage stakeholders with timely and relevant results that include comparable outcomes and costs. We will influence donors to incentivize the use and scaling of interventions with high impact, and shift the investment priorities and behaviors of major global donors and local actors.

How will we measure success? The test of success for the R&D lab is whether it generates evidence and solutions that change the practices of the IRC and wider humanitarian field. R&D will involve a high tolerance of failure, with success measured by the portfolio of projects rather than individual ones.

Narrowing the gap in outcomes between genders This strategy includes measures to ensure our programs narrow the gap in outcomes between women and men, girls and boys. Within our programs, our work on measurement will aim to ensure data is disaggregated by age and gender so we can identify inequalities and address them. Guided by the Outcomes and Evidence Framework, our programs will be designed to address the various barriers faced by women and children as they access employment and education, stay safe and healthy, and attempt to share power. Better analysis of context will bring greater understanding of gender dynamics. To become better in our programming, we also need to ensure our organization enables women at all levels to fulfill their potential. A Gender Opportunity Analysis will identify the changes required to address inequalities both in our programming and our organization.

Rescue.org


13

Infrastructure & Support The mission, vision and objectives set out in this strategy rely on our staff having the infrastructure to support them effectively: § The funding to enable the organization to invest in people, systems and initiatives, including the risk capital required to innovate; § The systems and technologies that support effective processes, particularly in managing grants and procuring goods and services; § The people with the right skills and capabilities, recruited in a timely manner, held to account appropriately, and rewarded and recognized for their contributions; § The communication skills and advocacy to enable IRC to raise its profile and shape policy, as we deliver on our vision of becoming a thought leader. The following infrastructure and supporting initiatives, overseen by a Cross-Functional Support Board, will directly support the strategy during the next five years.

Funding The Revenue Department aims to ensure private fundraising contributions make up at least 15 percent of total IRC funding; however, in the past five years, while funding from private sources has grown by the 37 percent, funding from public donors has grown by 87 percent. This has resulted in private funds making up just 11 percent of IRC funding in 2014. The IRC has the potential to change this and seize a greater share of the donor marketplace—in the U.S. and across the globe. We will increase both unrestricted and restricted revenues to provide seed funding for innovative programs and emergency-response work. The HQ and U.K. Revenue teams will be conducting a study on emerging markets to diversify our fundraising base. We are also looking at new ways to utilize the IRC Strategy to further strengthen the IRC’s brand and profile, as it is perceived by potential donors. The new senior vice president of Revenue will be responsible for leading the work of the HQ Revenue Team as we explore global funding opportunities outside of Europe.

Systems & Technology Information technology The IT Road Map offers clear direction for the transformation of the IRC’s systems and technology. The road map reflects the need to upgrade our systems and processes to match the existing scale and complexity of our programs, and support the aspirations in the strategy. The IT Road Map places particular focus on the following priorities: § Foundational IT Transformation of our core infrastructure, standards, support, services and tools, leading to direct technology improvements for our colleagues in the field (such as improved connectivity). § Grants Management An integrated OTIS that reflects the full grant life-cycle process, with the necessary data and reports available in a “one-stop shop” solution. § Measurement Data Platform An online data platform (with offline capabilities) for storing all project and organizational indicator data, allowing anyone in the IRC to view up-to-date data on projects and country programs.

Rescue.org


14

§ Supply Chain Systems Integrated up-to-date solutions that cover the full supply chain life-cycle processes, reporting needs and KPIs, and that reflect the IRC’s critical dependency on efficient and effective delivery of commodities. § Finance Systems & Processes Timely access to the right information to enable effective decision making (regarding budgets, commitments and projections). Awards Management We created a Grants Management Task Force to assess how the IRC can build a more efficient and integrated system that better serves the field, professionalizes our grants staff, and creates a more accountable governance structure. We will implement their recommendations in three priority areas: § Improving our processes and systems by expanding and improving OTIS as the system of record, developing a communication protocol and an accountability matrix, and the centralizing sub-award agreements at HQ. § Building capacity and addressing workload pressures by supporting select country programs to create a deputy director for grants position, creating a training team responsible for developing staff, and using metrics to ensure stronger accountability for performance. § Improving structures and governance through the creation of the Awards Management Unit (AMU) as a single focal point for the entire grants life-cycle. This will ensure IRC’s efforts are coordinated from concept to close out, will make for clearer accountability throughout the process, and will eliminate current confusion in the field regarding information and inquiries. The review process will have fewer actors involved, which will save time and frustration. The proposed model will also professionalize the grants management function across the IRC by providing greater support and training to grants staff in the field. Supply Chain The Global Supply Chain Team has set three-year goals to transform our supply chain practices, processes and systems to make them more reliable, faster and cost-effective. This transformation will better support our existing program delivery in protracted crisis and recovery contexts, and will particularly support the speed and timeliness objective in emergency contexts. The key to more efficient and reliable logistics is laying foundations for collaborative planning and excellent procurement practices. These need to be supported by better processes and systems and stronger learning and development. Key changes include: § Developing a procurement system that will remove the need for paper and automate the approval and tracking process (the procure-to-pay system will track purchase requests, purchase orders, delivery receipts, invoice and payments); § Developing a collaborative planning pilot in the fourth quarter of FY15 to reduce lead times and costs and improve quality; § Documenting market and supplier information, critical for every supply category; § Shifting to longer term agreements with suppliers to reduce transactional burdens; § Utilizing data to develop key performance indicators that will enable GSC to set benchmarks and targets for costs, volumes and lead times.

Rescue.org


15

Human Capital The most important asset the IRC has is its people. We therefore developed a human capital strategy to assess how we attract, develop, inspire and retain the right people with the right skills to achieve the IRC’s new mission, vision and strategic objectives. Building on our strengths, we will focus on: § Getting the right staff, faster by reviewing critical job descriptions, piloting new on-boarding processes, and instituting a staff satisfaction survey; § Ensuring staff are highly capable, highly accountable by reviewing core competencies, examining job objectives, and creating a single organization calendar for all performance reviews to ensure alignment and shared goal-setting; § Fostering exceptional leaders and managers by establishing standard training, piloting senior leadership development, rolling out talent assessments across the organization, and establishing systems for upward feedback; § Valuing and recognizing contributors by creating a Duty of Care Framework to guide decisions globally, rolling out an IRC-wide recognition and reward program, and piloting new ways of recognizing and rewarding staff who exemplify valued behaviors and strong performance.

Communications Communications is critical to building a stronger profile for the IRC, and in helping the IRC become a thought leader that shapes change in the humanitarian field. Our goal is to develop a best-in-class, cohesive communications program; therefore, we are investing in a Global Communications function that amplifies our reach, reputation and awareness. Building on work already started, Global Communications will continue to evolve as a strategic partner with the organization by: § Developing an integrated communications plan, incorporating media, video, digital and social platforms in a way that aligns with IRC strategy; § Clearly and consistently prioritizing efforts based on IRC strategic objectives and differentiators; § Establishing and reporting consistent, contextual and measurable objectives and results.

Advocacy Influencing policy change is critical to several objectives within the IRC strategy, both in our international programs and our resettlement work in the U.S. § Improving effectiveness: as set out in the Outcomes and Evidence Framework, the IRC believes we can have most impact by working to influence laws, institutions and policies that affect the health, education, safety, income and power of the people we serve. § Increasing scale and reach: we will address barriers to programming (by the IRC or other humanitarian actors) and improve the scale and reach of programs by improving access and funding. § Investing in Research and Development: the IRC recognizes that the scaling up and diffusion of innovative practices requires the dissemination of ideas to practitioners, and the removal of barriers to implementation by policy makers.

Rescue.org


16

Given the centrality of shaping public policy to the IRC’s vision and goals, the organization must be more deliberate and thorough in integrating advocacy at all levels where change could occur, including: § Technical advocacy in global capitals—We will build on the IRC’s research and technical knowledge to align resources behind a small number of sustained campaigns to drive policy changes by multilateral institutions and donors. § Technical advocacy in the field—Advocacy at the local level is key to our programming. Initially, we will determine what works best for the IRC and other organizations; then we will consider how to build the capacity within country offices and local technical staff to design and implement advocacy efforts. § Context-based advocacy—We will continue to use our knowledge of geographical context to focus attention on crises and address critical issues (such as humanitarian access and funding) that impede effective response. We will consider how to expand our regional advocacy capacity and, where possible, country capacity, including advocacy within our grant proposals.

Action Planning The IRC strategy will be advanced by promoting clear ownership for all of its parts, by aligning resources behind objectives, by measuring whether activities are delivering results, and by encouraging continuous learning and improvement. The key elements of the Action Plan are: Initiatives—As set out in Part 2, there are a number of initiatives that relate to each of the objectives. These will be supported with funding, and we have identified owners who will be accountable for delivery. Most of the initiatives will involve pilots and trials in particular places prior to roll out and will therefore be phased in over the five years of the strategy. We will ensure the impact on the field is manageable by tracking the cumulative impact of the initiatives alongside other HQ initiatives. Strategy Action Plans for Country Programs and USP Office Action Plans—Each country program and USP office will develop their own Action Plan to deliver the IRC strategy. We will provide guidance on Strategy Action Planning in January, with the view to completing all Strategy Action Plans for Country Programs and USP Office Action Plans between March and July. The IRC Europe Strategy will align our work in Europe with the strategy and assess how we can raise our profile, influence and funding there. Performance Scorecards—we will measure progress (within the organization and each country program) with a scorecard that tracks project performance against the objectives outlined in the Strategy Action Plans. Governance—Strategy Implementation Boards for our international work and U.S. programs will be responsible for driving the implementation of the strategy. These boards will report directly to the Leadership Board. A focus of the boards, and of the Strategy Unit that will support them, will be to ensure that the cumulative impact of the strategy implementation is controlled and sustainable for the field.

Rescue.org


Rescue.org

17


Conclusion The strategy builds on the IRC’s history and its distinctive strengths and culture; however, it represents an ambitious new chapter in the IRC’s ongoing commitment to improving the lives of the people we serve.

Rescue.org

18

IRC Strategy 2015–2020 - Microsoft

Recommend Documents