This final chapter summarizes the results and conclusions in the light of the following aspects:

• The PKP program in relation to the mandate of FOKER as well as its capacity
• program pertinence and effectiveness in the light of previous studies, assessments and evaluations
• program management
• program quality
• program impact

Following this, a summary is given of a selection of  recommendations from the previous chapters, which are considered most urgent for the implementation of the second year of the PKP program. This is not a general prioritization of importance of the recommendations, but a practical re-organization of recommendations taking into account the short term and long term aspects of FOKER’s Capacity Building program in general and the PKP program in specific.

Ø  The PKP program in the light of the FOKER mandate and capacity

As shown in chapter 2, the PKP program is well aligned with the current mandate of FOKER, especially since it creates a link between its expressed core functions of 1) advocacy, which is built on the input of its members and their communities, and 2) capacity building, where the PKP program aims to strengthen the capacity of the participants and the communities to critically analyze their context and address their position within the context.

The PKP program is only a limited implementation of FOKER’s original strategic plan on capacity building. One of the consequences is the insufficiency of Human Resources involved in the program, which limits FOKER’s possibility to closely follow up on the PKP program, as well as on the Capacity Building programs of its members or other external institutions.

The FOKER CB department should invest in knowledge to be able to develop its foundations for capacity building (theory, models,  approaches, tools) to assure its interventions are founded on explicit ideas and experience on how capacity is developed in specific contexts, instead of on standard models and assumptions, and that its interventions are adapted to the specific context of Papua.

To be able to assess the impact of FOKER’s PKP program, and thus assess its pertinence in the context of the regions Timika and Wamena, FOKER must develop a monitoring and evaluation system that allows measuring the impact on the level of the participating organizations, as well as on the level of the communities.

Ø  On program pertinence and effectiveness in the light of previous studies, assessments and evaluations

Previous assessments have indicated the need to address capacity issues within civil society organizations in Papua. FOKER responded to that recommendation with its Capacity Building strategy, of which the PKP program is part. Other studies have also revealed the need to start with assessing and reviewing models of change and development, used by NGO’s, if they have any. This is also relevant when considering Capacity Development. This recommendation did not seem to receive follow up so far. FOKER must start to assess its model of change and intervention strategy. It can do so by reviewing the impact its programs have had on changes in capacity and changes in the lives of the communities. This assessment should include evaluating how far their programs contributed to changes, or in how far they are the result of external factors and actors, or of non-planned emergent processes within communities and organizations.

Furthermore FOKER should invest in knowledge of alternative views on capacity development that do not focus on training or NGO’s.

Previous assessments concluded that capacity building is needed in the domain of Human Resources, organizational development as well as institutional development. FOKER is itself a practical answer to problems in Institutional Development of its members, where it offers a platform for communication, exchange and collaboration among the members as well as towards the external world. In the future, FOKER should focus part of its capacity building effort on its functioning as platform as well as in its relation with other external actors, to make it function optimal.

On the level of Human Resources and Organizational Development, FOKER’s programs and activities, amongst others the PKP program, have tried to address the needs that were identified. An important question is what FOKER can do in the light of available staff/capacities and funding. In the process of the elaboration of a new strategic plan on capacity building, FOKER should start with decisions on a) the integration of capacity building within the overall strategy of FOKER, b) defining capacity and capacity development and which elements related to capacity building will be addressed by FOKER, c) determine which domains are the responsibility of the members of FOKER d) and when and for which elements it will negotiate collaboration with external organizations.

Also, FOKER should consider in how far its programs address the recommendation concerning the reviewing of the roles of NGO’s in Papua, and the transformation from Service Deliverers who bring development to the people, towards becoming facilitators of community development processes in which the communities have a central place. The PKP program addresses the issue of community involvement and centrality, and as such responds to this recommendation. However, participants from the NGO’s still consider their roles as teachers, more than facilitators.

Finally, for the program to be pertinent, FOKER must take the program out of the training rooms in the city and focus on the implementation with the communities. FOKER must show that the program is relevant and contributes to change for the communities and does not remain a NGO-centered training program. To do so, the program and participants must focus stronger on the community and their existing potential, their experiences and their dynamics. Following earlier recommendations, the program should, where possible, work with existing groups and structures, instead of creating new ones. And, as was expressed by one participant: the program should look first at what people already do and know, before telling them what to do.

Ø  On Program Management

The PKP program is managed centrally by the Foker Secretariat / CB Department in Jayapura. More delegation of responsibility should make the program a continuous learning process instead of a sequence of planned training activities. Regional Coordinators and Steering Committees have now mainly a logistical role and there is no organized follow up or monitoring in between the planned workshops.

The current ME system is insufficient to monitor progress of the program and its effects, higher than on activity/output level. In Wamena, no ME system exists for the Regional Coordinator or the Steering Committee.

There is too much change of participants in the program, leading to very scattered understanding of the program, learning and knowledge development. This will eventually pose a serious risk to the potential impact of the program.

Finally, especially in Wamena, women are underrepresented among the participants, which should be addressed directly by FOKER. Not only to have equal representation in numbers, but to assure gender issues are integrated in the program.

Ø  On Program Quality

Participants are generally satisfied about the quality of the trainings, the materials and the facilitators. Facilitation materials need to be adapted to be used in the communities.

Participants find the program useful and pertinent in their context. It is adapted to the local context, addresses major issues in their context and in theory places the communities central. Another strong point of the program is the very practical element of training facilitators, who have the skills and knowledge to facilitate community education programs.

A major concern for most participants is the possibility to implement the lessons learned in the PKP program in their organizations as well as in their work, with the communities. For this, they ask for the leadership, especially of the Adat organizations, to be involved in the program, as well as for action to follow the trainings. They ask support from FOKER to enable them to implement the PKP program with their communities. This support would be in the form of coaching in the field by the facilitators, financial support directly to the participating organizations instead of through the Regional Coordination, and through lobby and advocacy support by FOKER Secretariat.

An important concern is that the program must have an impact on the lives of the communities in Papua. Furthermore, FOKER must address the involvement of the government and support participants in their lobby towards the government.

Ø  On Program Impact

The evaluator realizes that the PKP program has run only one year, and many follow up activities are planned and needed to complete the program. Therefore, it is too early to already see an impact. However, a serious concern exists concerning the possibility to assess the impact of the PKP program, since

• No clear change goals and objectives have been defined by FOKER for the impact of the program on participating organizations, neither on the communities
• No change goals or objectives have been defined by the participants, concerning their organizations or the communities they work with
• No consideration of contextual factors influencing change, or the program, have been included in FOKER’s program

Due to the inconsistencies in participation by organizations and their staff, the knowledge is scattered, posing serious risks to the program having any impact beyond fragmented individual learning by staff.

Organizations seem to look at FOKER to financially support them in implementing the “program”. Since FOKER cannot deliver this financial support to its members, there is a high risk that participating organizations will not do anything with the lessons learned. There is a high variation in roles, functions and mandates of participating staff and organizations. This leads to high variation in understanding of the purpose of the PKP program. Some organizations expect the PKP program to deliver tools to train community members in economic activities (such as sewing machines). The program should focus on members and partners that have mandates and programs in which the lessons from the PKP program can easily be integrated, to mitigate the risk of scattering of results and non-implementation of lessons learned.

Summary of Recommendations

This final chapter does not aim to repeat all recommendations given. The following presentation is a summary of a selection of recommendations given in the previous chapters, which are considered key for the implementation of the second phase of the PKP program.

1        The PKP program is very appreciated by participants as a truly new program with a strong potential to contribute to community empowerment. Therefore, the program should be finalised. However the second year must start with the elaboration of change goals, objectives, outcomes and indicators by FOKER for the PKP program, as well as with each participating organization, focussing on organizational level, as well as community level

2        FOKER must develop a Monitoring and Evaluation system with indicators allowing to monitor both progress of the program on a higher level than only the activity level, as well as to evaluate the impact the program has on achieving change goals. Apart from developing SMART outcomes, results and indicators, FOKER should consider the use of alternative monitoring and evaluation tools, such as story telling by participants and members of communities, in which stories on change are collected and documented to capture the changes in the lives of people and communities, and the role PKP has played in this, as well as other factors.

3        FOKER must start the second year with an explanation of the objectives of the PKP program and FOKER’s mandate to each participating organization.

4        FOKER Secretariat and regional coordination must select the participating organizations and participating staff for the second year, based on clearly defined criteria on commitment of leadership and mandate of participating organizations, functions of staff within the organizations, proven participation in key workshops and trainings in the first year of the program (especially ToT).

5        FOKER Regional Coordinators sign contracts with participating organizations, stipulating the objectives and results of the program for the participants. Furthermore, the contract should stipulate who of the organization will participate in the program. No staff changes should be allowed during the PKP program to avoid further scattering of results and understanding. In participant’s selection, FOKER must impose equal participation of men and women (1 man and 1 woman from each organization). Not respecting of the contract will lead to automatic exclusion from the PKP program.

6        Activities for the second year must be taken out of the “training room” in Timika and Wamena, and brought to the field where the participants can practically implement the knowledge and skills in their work with the communities. The PKP program must become an ongoing process of learning, implementation and feedback. Following the activities, the regional coordinators and facilitators must monitor and follow up the implementation of lessons learned both within the organizations as well as within the communities, using clear monitoring plans with useful indicators. Group meetings with the participants must be systematically organized to share experiences, problems and lessons learned.

7        The planned training with Satunama on financial management and report writing, or relating to other organizational management issues, for only 8 organizations, should be cancelled.

8        The PKP program must reinforce the understanding of the role of facilitators. These are not teachers who bring knowledge or new methods, but facilitate processes within communities. FOKER must introduce community centred approaches, such as Appreciative Planning and Action or Assets Based Community Development, to avoid reproducing general approaches starting with needs assessments and NGO’s taking the role of filling the needs.

9 The workshops should include the development of facilitation materials in local languages and the use of drawings and cartoons or other visual materials

10    The second year must make sure the PKP program has an impact on community level and is not a training exercise aimed at NGO staff. This means participants must be accompanied in the implementation of the program with their communities (recommendations 6 and 8), as well as address the question how the organizations and communities can influence the government and their policies. FOKER Secretariat can support the Regional Coordination in their communication with the government.

11    Specific attention should be given in the modules to the position and rights of women and youth, to assure their participation and involvement in the program and in community processes.

12    The FOKER CB Department and regional coordinators and steering committees must review and strengthen the regional management structure, in which the RC and SC have clearly defined roles and create ownership over the program. This means the CB Coordinator must delegate responsibilities, not only concerning logistical issues but also assure transfer of capacity and knowledge about the program to the regional coordinators and steering committee. The RC and SC in turn must assume these responsibilities and assure implementation and continuous monitoring.

13    The FOKER CB Coordinator must have regular meetings with the Regional Coordinators and Steering Committees, to monitor program implementation and discuss possible changes and adaptations in the program.

14    To improve consistent participation of the same people in the program and avoid scattering of results, FOKER Regional Coordinators must undertake a participative planning with the participants to assure their availability. FOKER should directly address the participants and their organization well in advance to assure all are informed and confirm their participation.

Furthermore, it is recommended that the FOKER Secretariat takes into account the following recommendations:

• FOKER will start with the elaboration of its new strategic plan in 2010, taking into account the recommendations from chapter 2
• FOKER Capacity Building and Network Department (including FOKER regional staff involved in CB activities) must invest in learning and knowledge development concerning capacity development approaches, theories, methods and tools. This should also involve participative and alternative monitoring and evaluation systems.
• FOKER Capacity Building Department must establish a Capacity Development Working Group
• FOKER should reconsider making “standard modules” which they can implement in every region (as is planned in the PKP program). Apart from reducing the context-related quality (strong point in the program), it should be recognized by FOKER that the process of learning and change is just as important as the product of the module. (*)

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites