A generic Logical Framework of our approach

[Gaston]

Based on the experience of the last 5 years, we have tried to capture our ‘ideal process’ in a logical framework, using the same template as UNAIDS and many other partners.

Purpose: Imagine we get ‘carte blanche’ of an organization to work 2 years in one country. What would we offer that enables scale and quality of Community Life Competence? And what can we promise?

Questions to you:
- Does this reflect our approach and values well? Would we have all ingredients for scale?
- Is there logic? Do all activities lead to the outputs (given assumptions)? Do all outputs lead to objectives (given assumptions?).
- We commit to deliver and measure outputs, but have to show contribution to objectives. Does this statement hold?

Please consider that the logical framework approach has shortcomings as it sees development as a linear process.

[Gaston]

Dear friends, comments from Ian Campbell (some of which are included in the attached V2 version):

Hi Gaston and friends

Very useful long term -it is one of those things that will grow and get better with interaction here and there

Good start in my view

The list of activities lacks the elements of local community conversation needed to set things going.

The emphasis on outcomes and outputs for organisations need to be more on action in learning and facilitation rather than passing tests -ie keep the tests in but see them as supportive to real engagement,and the real engagement matters most

I have added a few comments -needs a lot of time and no more available right now

Go well and thanks,

Ian

[rebeka sultana]

Hi Gaston,

The 'goal' looks tentative, I suggest to put “Communities are competent to deal life challenges and self relient/respond effectively"

outcome I: Communities demonstrate effective local level HIV/AIDS response

Related Principal Outcome indicators: Increased Number of communities in ……districts/ city that showed measureable positive change in HIV/AIDS response and becoming AIDS Competent

Now I see the frame work is very complex ( as always it should be :-) and needs lot of time. When do you plan to finalize it? Let me know. I am interested to review and work with you on this.

Regards,
Rebeka

[Gaston]

Thanks Rebeka. Useful comments. I received a lot of comments from many people, mostly by email. I am trying to put all this together, which will take time. I'll keep you informed on the 'next version'.

Regards,
Gaston

[Ricardo Walters]

Gaston,

Wow! I'm a bit in awe, really. This represents an enormous amount of work. Thanks for putting in the time and effort, and offering the space for reflection and comment.

Before delving into detail, my first comment is, perhaps, slightly cautionary and reinforces your final comment. The process is organic, and non-linear. Facilitation is a non-directive, supportive leadership, but not prescriptive. Subsequently, we can propose possibilities, and present principles based on experiences in many places; but we should avoid settling into an "ideal" process. I think it's important that we stay completely open to the "newness" of every partnership opportunity - that every process needs to be designed around the variables of that setting. We're talking, I guess, about the logic of "best-fit" as opposed to the logic of "ideal".

Goal: Apart from having communities able to deal with life-threats, is the goal of CLC that every community is making (consistent, sustainable, measurable) progress towards acheiving their own vision of an ideal community? This goes beyond simply dealing with threats.

Impact: I'm not immediately sure what to suggest here regarding language, but I think we should think of more distinctive impact of a CLC process. Any other programme or intervention will make a similar claim around impact - ie. improved quality of life. What is it about CLC that is unique or special in terms of long-term results at the human-level?

Strategy: I think the strategy is, at least, two-fold. One is captured already around local responses by communities. I think we have a strategy around organisational renewal and policy influence that similarly needs to be captured.

I'll want to review the rest of the document in much more depth, but in general I support Ian's comment. The tools of AIDS Competence - ie. self-assessment, etc. - are certainly useful. But there are other dimensions of response that are less tools-based and technical that may need to figure in the outcome indicators and verification. For instance, we know that certain subtle shifts take place at local level to demonstrate care, participation and inclusion. The sequence/cycle of home-visits by neighbours linked to community conversation (where some tools are a helpful aid to focus and systematic practise) is not clear enough in the logframe. This is not the same as SALT, I think.

I'll jump back in over the next few days to add more. Is this useful as a start?

Great job!
Ricardo

[Gaston]

Thanks Ricardo. Certainly useful as a start. On Goal and Impact and 'best fit' I agree. On Strategy, you mean we should 'merge' outcome 2 & 3?

I agree with the less tool-based demonstrations. At the same time, we, as facilitators or implementing organization, need to commit to the outputs described. WE cannot commit to increased care and participation. We can only stimulate it. However, it obviously needs to be measured by someone (ideally the community). But then it would be an indicator of the first principal outcome (increases in local responses) more than output level, right?

When you think further, give specific thought about what we can 'control' or can commit to in terms of outputs, considering your comments on these gentle shifts at local level, community conversation etc.

Many thanks, Gaston

[Gaston]

Dear friends, our understanding of the process has improved and therefore a generic logical framework has been simplified. The experience of going to scale in DR-Congo certainly contributed to this. See here the latest version of the logical framework. Comments are more than welcome.