Cash Learning PartnershipWorking together to improve the quality of humanitarian cash and voucher
transfer programming
CaLP Core CVA Skills for Programme Staff
Gaza, OPT
24-28 November 2019
1
Contents
1. Summary of details 32. Workshop rationale 43. Participant profiles 44. Training facilitators 45. Challenges and implications 46. CVA Challenges, Priorities, Actions in Gaza 47. Training evaluation 7
Annex1. Agenda
2
1. Summary Dates 24. – 28.11.2019Location Gaza, OPTNumber of participants 21 participants completed
Total number of days 5 days
Facilitator names Jürgen Mika, independent consultant C. Mike Daniels, independent consultant
Workshop organizer CaLP MenaVenue Al Deira Hotel, Gaza City
Objectives
To support participants to be able integrate CTP into the design, implementation and monitoring of humanitarian programming.
Participants should be able to: Understand how CTP is guided by key policies, standards
and guidelines Describe how CTP needs to be integrated into the role of
different teams throughout the project cycle Explain what assessment information is needed to inform
response analysis Use information to inform modality selection Understand how CTP can contribute to response objectives Identify the information needed for monitoring CTP Identify how collaboration and coordination support quality CTP
3
2. Workshop rationale and objectives
This core skills for CTP course was structured around the project cycle and covered all of the key skills and competences required to design, implement and monitor cash transfer programmes.
Course aim:To support participants to be able integrate CTP into the design, implementation and monitoring of humanitarian programming.
By the end of this Course, participants should be able to:
Understand how CTP is guided by key policies, standards and guidelines Describe how CTP needs to be integrated into the role of different teams
throughout the project cycle Explain what assessment information is needed to inform response analysis Use information to inform modality selection Understand how CTP can contribute to response objectives Identify the information needed for monitoring CTP Identify how collaboration and coordination support quality CTP
3. ParticipantsThere was a total of 21 Participants who signed up for the training, The lead and the co-lead of the Gaza CVA TWG participated part time.
4. Training facilitatorsJürgen Mika, independent consultant C. Mike Daniels, independent consultant
5. Challenges and implications
1. Overall, the training went very well, with satisfied participants. However, much of the organization was apparently left quite late, with limited CaLP contact with local organizers, and thus limited contact between trainers and local organizers.
2. Many participants were late on the first day, so the training started with one-hour delay. Possibly some had not received confirmation/agenda in time from organizers or CaLP. In future this should be done with more advance notice.
3. Following requests from participants, the schedule was adapted to the local work schedule starting at 8h00 am and finishing at 4h00 pm having lunch at 1h30 pm providing 3 sessions in the morning and one the afternoon with participants getting tired at the end of the morning. In future this should be agreed in advance, based on better trainer access to local organizers.
4. Some participants had to attend work related issues during the training and spent a lot of time working on their laptops or outside on the phone.
5. During group work, some participants took advantage to “escape” and rather spend time drinking coffee and smoking.
4
6. Overall, the lack of discipline in terms of punctuality and participation was a challenge and made it difficult for the facilitators to start and finish on time. This was addressed earlier and more firmly at the following training which was very effective.
7. Complaints about organization, registration and administration of training, communication between CaLP Amman and Participants (late confirmation of the venue, starting date for example). A lot of participants received their email in the spam email box.
6. Session on CVA challenges, priorities actions for the CVA TWG in Gaza
The course also aimed at providing space for the participants to identify challenges, priorities and actions observed at national level from a strategic and technical point. This session is imperative particularly after the training as participants have a depth of understanding on what CVA in a project cycle entails and looking ahead, can formulate a trajectory for CVA in Gaza in particularly.
The participants were grouped and provided with three guiding questions. See below:
What challenges are they facing? How can the CVA TWG help to addressing these challenges What actions can we take with the support of the CVA TWG to address the
challenges?
Findings from the group discussions
Participants identified a variety of challenges, most related to gaps in coordination and harmonization on cash programme approaches and procedures, difficulty in sharing of beneficiary information, and external challenges such as border closures affecting markets. The key challenges to discuss were therefore grouped into 1) need for information sharing, 2) need for finalization of a MEB and harmonization of transfer amounts, 3) need for a consistent/shared dataset, and 4) external challenges.
Plenary discussion then identified MEB/harmonization and information sharing as the two areas where the CPWG (MEB taskforce) could most assist. The issues of datasets and external challenges relate to all programmes and Gaza and require top-level action if at all possible, to address.
Key action steps identified were: 1) for Mercy Corps and the relevant task force to share the current draft MEB and for the TWG to advocate for endorsement by the ICCG and extended HCT; 2) for organizations to incorporate use of MEB and gap analysis into proposals and programmes while working towards harmonization with the support of the TWG; and 3) for the TWG to define what information would best be shared and for the TWG and OCHA to lead on collecting and sharing information for example organizational approaches and SOPs.
5
6
7. Training evaluation
The below tables show the results of the qualitative questionnaire:
The two TWG leads participated in the evaluation too, however because of sessions they couldn’t attend they were not able to judge the achievement (marked as “no opinion” or “not sure”)
Section 1: General Feedback on the Course
7
8
Was there anything missing from the course that you would have liked to have covered? Or was there anything in the course you would have liked to have covered in more detail?
Nothing More on market assessments More on targeting Other countries experience to be described in details Risk analysis of the different modalities How can we select the most appropriate BNFs for the MPGs? What control measures could we apply to ensure the achievement of project
objectives through MPCA? Its ok for me There is nothing miss in this course. I am sure it covered every topic in details Maybe more examples from other CPWG would have been useful. Other than that,
nothing was missed. It was a fantastic course. A bit more on targeting and market analysis
Do you have any general comments about the course, or suggestions for how this course might be improved?
Thanks a lot for your efforts To include more real case studies and examples The course is very useful. The trainers are very helpful Increase the group work in many titles Timing is too long so if we have some breaks for one or two days Interesting No comments, it was very well delivered. Thanks to the trainers it was very useful training with rich content and lots of linking
and coordination amongst participants and organizations
9
Section 2: Feedback on the workshop delivery
10
Do you have any specific comments or feedback on the training materials?
The training time is v long. It’s recommended to be shorter Provide us a electronic materials used in the course More energetic exercises The timing of the workshop is not suitable and the duration is a little bit long taking
into consideration the heavy workload that humanitarian workers have in this period.
Want to add that the course and the way of delivering the course is very effective way
No further comment - excellent job done. Thanks
11
Section 3: Questions specific to the course Objectives
12
13
14
Thanks Please continue delivering such useful trainings The training is very useful and increase my knowledge also enhance my experiences
in cash programs. Thank you
"No Opinion" replies refer to sessions I was not able to attend. Great course, I learned a lot - thank you very much.
15
ANNEX 1: AGENDA
Time Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
8:0090’
Welcome, introductions TOPIC 1: CTP Concepts, Standards and the Policy EnvironmentSession 1.1 CTP concepts
Recap Recap Recap RecapSession 2.3 Market assessment and market based programming (MBP)
Session 3.3 Response analysis
Session 4.3 Distribution and reconciliation
TOPIC 6: Looking AheadSession 6.1 Workshop session on challenges & priorities in Ethiopia
9.30 Break Break Break Break Break10:0090’
Session 1.2 CTP Project cycle, standards and policy environment
Session 2.4 Tools and methods for market assessment
Session 3.3 Response analysis(continued)Session 3.4 Gap analysis and transfer value
Session 4.3 Distribution and reconciliation(continued)Session 4.4 Coordination
Session 6.2 Preparedness
11.30 Break Break Break Break Break12:0090’
TOPIC 2: Assessment Session 2.1 Assessment in humanitarian response
TOPIC 3: Analysis Session 3.1 Feasibility analysis
TOPIC 4: Design & ImplementationSession 4.1 Targeting and registration
TOPIC 5: MonitoringSession 5.1 Monitor what?
Session 6.3 Looking ahead
13:30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch End14:3090’
Session 2.2 Market assessmentFeedback and close
Session 3.2 Risk analysisFeedback and close
Session 4.2 Working with service providers and partnersFeedback and close
Session 5.2 Market monitoringFeedback and close
16
17
