USAID CAF2 0 Application Guide DRAFT 2012.pdf

APPLICATION GUIDE---DRAFT

CONFLICT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 2.0

MARCH 2012

This publication was produced by the United States Agency for International Development. It is supple-mentary guidance on applying the revised Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF 2.0), available from

USAID. This version is draft and does not represent final guidance from USAID.

DRAFT

The present document does not represent final guidance from USAID.

i

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... I ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. II

BACKGROUND & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SECTION 1: ORIENTATION

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.2 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE

1.2.1 THE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK IN BRIEF

SECTION 2: DIAGNOSIS

2.1 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES

2.1.1 IDEA TO INVITATION

2.1.2 TIMING

2.1.3 STAKEHOLDERS

2.1.4 ASSESSMENT TEAM COMPOSITION

2.1.5 FORMALIZING THE DISCUSSION

2.2 PREPARATION

2.2.1 SCOPE OF WORK

2.2.2 ASSESSMENT SUPPORT DOCUMENT

2.2.3 WASHINGTON-BASED CONSULTATIONS

2.2.4 PRE-DEPARTURE LOGISTICS

2.3 ORIENTATION

2.3.1 BUILDING THE TEAM

2.3.2 DEVELOPING RELATIONSHIPS

2.3.3 FINALIZE THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED LOGISTICS

2.4 FIELD WORK: DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

2.4.1 ANALYSIS

2.5 SYNTHESIS

2.5.1 HEADLINES: A FOUR-STEP PROCESS FOR SYNTHESIS

2.5.2 SYSTEMS THINKING AND MAPPING

SECTION 3: RESPONSE

3.1 OVERVIEW

3.2 REPORTING

3.2.1 BRIEFINGS

3.2.2 FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE

SECTION 4: CONCLUSION

ANNEX A: SUMMARY OF PHASES AND ACTIVITIES

ANNEX B: PROTECTION AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

ANNEX C: DATA COLLECTION FORM TEMPLATE

ANNEX D: TEMPLATE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

ii

ACRONYMS

ADS USAID Automated Directives System

CAF Conflict Assessment Framework

CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy

CMC Office of Civilian-Military Cooperation (USAID)

CMM Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (USAID)

COTR Contracting Officer‘s Technical Representative

CSO State Department Bureau for Conflict and Stabilization Operations

DAC Development Assistance Committee of the OECD

DCHA Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Affairs (USAID)

DCM Deputy Chief of Mission

DRG Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (USAID)

EADS USAID Economic Analysis and Data Services

FSN Foreign Service National

ICAF Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework

ICRP Instability, Crisis and Recovery Programming

IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract

KSC USAID Knowledge Service Center

LOE Level of Effort

MOU Memorandum of Understanding (between DCHA/CMM and Mission)

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

POC Point of Contact

RSO Regional Security Officer

SBU Sensitive but Unclassified

S/CRS Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (see CSO)

SOW Scope of Work (a USAID-contractor agreement)

SOW Statement of Work (more appropriately referred to as MOU)

USAID U. S. Agency for International Development

USG United States Government

BACKGROUND & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

[[forthcoming]]

SECTION 1: ORIENTATION

1.1 OVERVIEW

A conflict assessment is a systematic process to analyze and prioritize the dynamics of peace, conflict, stability, and instability in a given country context. Conflict assessment is the first step in formulating strategies, developing policies, and designing programs that effectively prevent, mitigate, and manage conflict dynamics. Working in close cooperation with Missions, the USAID Office of Conflict

Management and Mitigation (DCHA/CMM) conducts assessments on the basis of its Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF 2.0), which is described in detail in a companion document by that name.

Both the Conflict Assessment Framework and this Application Guide are key resources for those who will take part in the assessment process. These resources also guide headquarters and Mission personnel who will be participating in defining the purpose and desired outputs from an assessment process.

A conflict assessment consists of two stages: diagnosis and response. During the diagnosis phase, the assessment team gathers information about the country‘s internal conflict dynamics. This data gathering involves both a preparatory literature review, as well as field work. After examining the conflict dynamics, the assessment team uses its findings to identify likely future scenarios that could alter a country‘s risk of violent conflict.

During the response stage, the assessment team draws on its rich diagnostic analysis and consults with the client Mission, or operating unit, to formulate actionable responses. These recommendations can inform strategic planning, as well as program design and management. Assessments only rarely lead to the design of stand-alone programs targeting specific conflicts; more often, the analysis enables USAID Missions to apply development resources across sectors and in a conflict-sensitive fashion.

To conduct a field-based conflict assessment is challenging. It involves applying a set of rigorous analytical tasks in a dynamic process, which must be sensitive to issues ranging from policy positions and organizational interests to interpersonal and intercultural dynamics to language and logistical constraints.

This document provides guidance to ease those challenges. It describes the basic steps needed to organize and implement an assessment. The first of the guide‘s four parts discusses the collection, sorting, analysis, synthesis, and application of data and information. The second part provides information for the remainder of the assessment process, which includes recommended responses and reporting requirements.

1.2 ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN PRACTICE

There are five distinct tasks to complete in any assessment:

1. Collect data.

2. Sort data into the assessment framework categories.

3. Synthesize data in each category.

4. Draw connections between categories.

5. Develop an analytical narrative (a story) that captures the data and connections.

These tasks are not purely linear in nature, nor do they directly correspond to the assessment phases.

Nevertheless, there is a trajectory to the tasks and the overall analytical process. Data collection—in the form of a literature review, field work, interviews, observations, etc.—is particularly important.

Analysis of flawed or incomplete data is unlikely to produce useful conclusions. Hence, those conducting an assessment must pay particular attention to collecting good data while ensuring that data collection does not come at the expense of the other four tasks, or analyzing the meaning of the data

1.2.1 The Analytical Framework in Brief

The starting point for data collection is the conflict assessment framework (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Conflict Assessment Framework 2.0

As noted above, a USAID conflict assessment consists of two stages: a diagnosis of the situation and recommendations for an appropriate response. (These stages, and the terms below, are explained in more detail in Chapter 3 of the Conflict Assessment Framework. A brief summary is offered below.)

Diagnosis consists of identifying the current conflict dynamics and determining likely future trajectories. These two parts occur within a specific context and may be likened to taking a snapshot, then turning it into a movie.

Conflict dynamics describe the interplay between latent grievances and resiliencies, and the key actors who mobilize people and resources based upon them. Mobilized grievances are often the drivers of a given conflict.

Context here refers to a range of factors, including the country‘s history, geography, fundamental social and political institutions, economic structures, demographics, and international and external connections. Grievance and resilience emerge from an interaction between identity groups and institutional performance that produce enduring social patterns.

Trajectories refer to trends and triggers that may lead to greater stability or instability, conflict or reconciliation.

Generating response recommendations is the last component of the conflict assessment. This step is based on identifying options with technical merit, determining their empirical grounding and likely impact, and then prioritizing those options based on practical considerations of timing, resources, and interests.

Data collected through assessment essentially fall into three basic types: facts, feelings, and forecasts, or

―the three Fs‖ for short. These are not hard-and-fast categories, but, rather, helpful concepts for sorting data.

Facts are objectively measureable or verifiable pieces of information. If different people working with different methods were to examine the same question and provide the same answer, then that answer is probably a fact. Typical facts compiled for an assessment include economic growth rates, population size, level of income inequality, proven oil reserves, the size of the armed forces, or the types of projects that are currently being funded by donors.

Feelings refer to perceptions, attitudes, and judgments. Different people examining the same question or issue may have different feelings about it. Feelings may, or may not, correspond to widely-observed facts or dominant narratives. Examples of feelings include group perceptions or shared narratives about historical events, economic patterns such as the distribution of wealth, or how effectively sectors like education or health are performing. Although opinion polling data may be quite reliable, it is still considered to fall under the banner of feelings.

Forecasts represent a combination of facts and judgments by knowledgeable people to produce an estimate of how the future may unfold. For example, expecting a coming oil windfall, anticipating a stolen election in an undemocratic state, or noting the possibility of an epidemic of avian flu would all be considered forecasts.

Setting the three Fs against the ten lines of inquiry produces the following matrix:

Framework Component Lines of Inquiry Facts Feelings Forecasts

Diagnosis

Context

History

Physical and Geographic

Characteristics

Institutions

Socioeconomic and

Demographic

Characteristics

External Influences

Dynamics

Grievances

Resilience

Key Mobilizers

Identities

Institutional Performance

Societal Patterns

Trajectories Trends

Triggers

Response

Analytical Approaches

Analytic Dimensions of Theories of Change

Bright Spots

Practical Prioritization

Mission Priorities and Time Horizon

Financial/Human Resources of Mission

Mission Partners and

Partnerships

Other Donors and Agencies

Depending upon the area of analysis, only one or two of the three data types is likely to be most salient.

For example, most of the data collected on context will be factual, but, when it comes to institutional performance, both facts and feelings will be important. For potential trends and triggers, meanwhile, the assessment team will be most interested in forecasts.

During the field work phase, the assessment team should place the highest priority on feelings and forecasts. Generally speaking, the team can obtain access to facts through a desk study that is done prior to, or following, the team‘s deployment. Thus, the primary goal of meetings during the field phase will be to elicit feelings—perceptions, attitudes, and judgments—about both current conditions and future expectations. Understanding these feelings will be particularly important with respect to analyzing the role which institutions, social patterns, and key mobilizers all play.

The assessment team should seek to understand why people involved in the conflict feel the way that they do, or what aspects of the conflict dynamics shape the feelings of the communities being assessed.

Similarly, it is not enough just to collect forecasts. Rather, the team should seek to examine what is behind those forecasts and, ideally, what future signs would indicate whether the forecast is accurate or inaccurate.

Of course, both individuals and groups may have feelings and forecasts that differ in profoundly important ways, and there may be deep divisions of opinion even on one ―side‖ of a conflict. When

USAID acts in ways that privilege—purposefully or inadvertently—the perspective and interests of some parties in a conflict over others, it becomes, for better or worse, an actor in that conflict. Of course, the U.S. Government (USG) adopts policy positions in its foreign affairs, but it is essential that the assessment team be allowed to develop an objective view of the conflict based on independent, critical thought. To be successful, therefore, assessment teams—and those who work with them—should adopt sound procedures and structures to uphold intellectual honesty and integrity throughout the process, should maintain transparency in the methodology, and should protect sensitive information when it is disclosed.

Assessment teams should also take care to seek out a wide range of sources in their data collection process, including those who disagree with the policies of the USG or its allies.

SECTION 2: DIAGNOSIS

This section describes the assessment process—in roughly chronological order—from inception to conclusion. While each assessment is tailored to meet the needs of the client (usually a USAID Mission), and is therefore unique, the overall process unfolds according to the following timeline:

1. Preliminary Activities

2. Preparation

3. Orientation

4. Field Work: Data Collection and Analysis

5. Synthesis

6. Response

7. Reporting

The remainder of Section 2 describes the activities associated with each of the seven phases.

2.1 PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES

Conducting a conflict assessment can add value to strategic and program planning processes in all circumstances and country contexts. By helping to develop conflict response strategies, as well as by helping to ensure that development projects are at minimum conflict-sensitive, assessments give

Missions an opportunity to leverage the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance.1

In addition to being recommended in situations of escalating violence, outright war, or post-conflict reconstruction, conflict assessments can also shed light on the underlying conditions that support radical or extremist movements or that fuel pervasive instability short of full-scale conflict. In this regard, conflict assessments can complement large-scale program design or evaluation processes.

Even if a country has not experienced violent conflict in the past, conflict assessments will highlight potential areas of concern and can help development programs begin to address destabilizing trends before they reach a stage of crisis. Similarly, the factors leading to the outbreak of violence do not disappear once a peace agreement has been signed; in fact, in many cases, levels of violence have actually increased following the official termination of hostilities. By helping to prevent conflicts and ensure conflict-sensitive aid, this is one area where assessment can help USAID to exert the greatest leverage in terms of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. foreign assistance.

Key preliminary activities to conflict assessment include:

1. Moving from idea to invitation;

2. Establishing a timeline;

3. Identifying key stakeholders;

4. Assembling an assessment team; and

5. Formalizing the plan in a memorandum of understanding.

2.1.1 Idea to Invitation

The impetus for conducting a conflict assessment can originate from the field or from Washington. The preferred process is for assessment requests to originate with, and be driven by, USAID Missions. In some cases, however, DCHA/CMM or a Regional Bureau may initiate conversation about conducting an assessment.

There are two related questions that must be answered at the outset of any assessment process. First, is a conflict assessment the most appropriate activity to meet USAID‘s needs and objectives? Second, if a conflict assessment is appropriate, what are the expected outputs and outcomes of the assessment activity?

As noted above, conflict assessments are generally used to inform high-level strategy and the understanding of USAID personnel, and consequently are most frequently conducted as part of a strategic planning process, in anticipation of a new program with key conflict dimensions, or in the lead-up to or wake of a potential trigger event like a major election, referendum, outbreak of violence, change in government, or similar event. Interest in conducting an assessment may also arise from a general perception or early warning indication that a country is ―at risk‖ of becoming more unstable, fragile, or violent.

Conflict assessments yield response recommendations based on the diagnosis, but these are not substitutes for program designs or evaluations. Similarly, assessments can help personnel to better

1 For more information on distinctions among conflict response and conflict-sensitive development, refer to the main Conflict

Assessment Framework publication.

understand dynamics of conflict in a country, but often the final briefing is short and directed to the key personnel of a Mission. If the goal is to engage the broader organization in a discussion about conflict, a training could be an appropriate substitute or complementary activity. Refer to the box below on

CMM Support Services for more information on available technical assistance, or contact DCHA/CMM directly.

If an assessment does appear to be the most appropriate activity, then the Mission and CMM should discuss in more detail its various aspects, such as its fundamental purpose, primary audience, key primary and secondary deliverables, and related considerations. This information will inform planning for the assessment and will eventually be documented in the Memorandum of Understanding and the

Scope of Work.

Maintaining the integrity and value of the assessment process depends on careful attention to the framework and methodology, but not all assessments are the same. In some cases, and as part of their strategic planning process, Missions undertake conflict assessments in close coordination with other development initiatives—related, for example, to democracy and governance, youth, or economic growth. In other cases, particularly in countries experiencing or recovering from conflict or severe instability, conflict assessments may be conducted ‗à la carte.‘ For instance, they may be done to help ensure that current programming is sensitive to the conflict dynamics and ‗does no harm.‘ An optimal time to conduct a conflict assessment is in conjunction with a major portfolio review or planning period, such as for a Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS).

CMM Mission Support Services

CMM provides the following services and products to Missions to better understand and respond to regional or country conflict dynamics:

Early Warning and At-Risk Country Backstopping: CMM staff track conflict trends in at-risk countries and compile the annual Alerts Lists of fragility and instability, which provides Missions and Regional Bureaus with nuanced early warning information.

Assessments: Utilizing the Conflict Assessment Framework (CAF), CMM staff analyzes the conflict drivers, mitigators, and actors in a country context. The CAF provides recommendations for strategic planning processes and conflict-sensitive responses.

Program Design: CMM publications are reference tools that Missions and bureaus can use to incorporate conflict assessment into program design, monitoring, and evaluation. CMM staff may assist in designing peacebuilding or conflict-sensitive programming for Missions.

Strategy Support: The office may tailor workshops, in country or in Washington, to facilitate a

Mission‘s strategic planning as it considers responses to crisis issues. CMM provides conflict-sensitive guidance through the CDCS process.

Reconciliation Fund Support: Missions in at-risk countries may opt to be included in the people-to-people annual program statement, a global competition for targeted grants in reconciliation and peacebuilding .

Instability, Crisis and Recovery Programming (ICRP): CMM maintains an Indefinite Quantity

Contract (IQC) focusing on crisis-related programming including prevention, peacebuilding , peace processes, and recovery.

Training: CMM offers several overseas and Washington-based trainings every year in conflict analysis and programming.

Once the involved parties have decided to conduct an assessment, they must make a number of preliminary decisions related to the scope of the assessment and its type, location, financing, and timing.

These might include asking questions like the following:

Is the primary purpose to help craft future strategies, programs or policies, or to sensitize and inform existing ones?

What forms of recommendations or analysis would be most useful? For example, would the

Mission prefer recommendations tied to particular scenarios, or would they prefer a set of high-level strategic inputs, program ideas/options, or some other deliverable?

Who is the primary audience? Is it likely that the assessment will be classified, or will it be shared with implementers?

Will the assessment be national or focused on a particular sub-region?

Will it focus on particular sectors or programs?

When will it be feasible to conduct the roughly two weeks of preparation, three weeks of field work, and three weeks of analysis and writing?

Another question for the key parties to pose and answer early on pertains to what degree other agencies within the U.S. Government should be involved in the assessment. If substantial interagency interest is anticipated, then it will be necessary to involve the State Department‘s Bureau of Conflict and

Stabilization Operations (S/CSO)2 and potentially to use an alternate methodology like the Interagency

Conflict Assessment Framework (ICAF). Other bilateral and multilateral donors—or the government of the host country itself in some cases—may have shared assessment needs such that a jointly-conducted conflict or fragility assessment could add value to all. One advantage of joint assessments is that they leverage resources and limit demands on the host country government and, thus, advance good international standards of aid effectiveness and international engagement. A disadvantage of joint assessments, on the other hand, is that they are more difficult to coordinate and tend to impose greater burdens of coordination and administrative for donors.

It is critical that the USAID Mission identify one point of contact (POC) as early as possible that will correspond with a DCHA/CMM. The USAID Mission may need to develop an informal committee to support the Mission POC. Frequently, but certainly not always, a staff member within the Mission‘s

Democracy and Governance team serves as the main POC. The Mission may also wish to appoint a

POC to handle logistics, as the assessment team will need support for housing, transportation (including possibly Mission vehicles), and related items.

2.1.2 Timing

A typical assessment requires a minimum of eight weeks from start to finish, including one week of preparation, one week to prepare a desk study, three weeks of field work, and, finally, three weeks for final analysis and writing.

Setting dates early is critical.

While it is not realistic to plan the full assessment schedule prior to departure, the overall dates should be agreed upon as early as possible.

2 CSO was formerly the Coordinator for Stabilization and Reconstruction (S/CRS).

In planning and selecting a time for the assessment, it is important to pay particular attention to the external forces that could affect scheduling, such as weather (e.g. rainy seasons), national and religious holidays, school schedules, and so forth. With proper foresight, the team may be in a position to shorten the duration of the assessment and increase its efficiency. Finally, thinking about team structure early on will allow team members to plan their schedules accordingly, including fitting in time for preliminary readings (see section 2.1.4 in this document).

Plan for approximately three weeks of field work.

It typically takes several months from receiving the invitation letter to submitting the final report. Field work for a country-wide assessment takes approximately three weeks, and the final report is typically issued shortly after the team‘s return. Experience has shown that assessments that take less than three weeks to complete have rarely been able to sufficiently address all aspects of the assessment and, therefore, are of less value to all involved.

In addition to conducting field work along the lines of inquiry listed on page 4, it is imperative that the team schedule time at the front and back ends of the field work for the full range of necessary activities.

For example, of the three weeks set aside for field work, approximately 20 percent will focus on

―getting started‖ with planning, teambuilding and orientation, 60 percent will focus on direct data gathering, , and 20 percent will focus on analysis, synthesis, and documentation/reporting.

Of course, not all assessments are three weeks in duration. If a relatively large team is conducting the assessment, it may take longer. A country‘s geography, and related logistical considerations, may also affect the time frame. It is possible to reduce the time somewhat if the assessment covers only specific regions and not the entire country. Finally, if the team wants to integrate findings from the assessment into Mission programs, it may be necessary to add additional days at the end of the field work.

2.1.3 Stakeholders

Any conflict assessment will necessarily involve the participation and cooperation of many individuals and organizations. Similarly, there will be a number of parties with a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the assessment and in the final report. Thus, once the Mission has received and accepted an assessment invitation, it is important to begin identifying the stakeholders that should be involved.

The immediate audience for the conflict assessment report, as well as DCHA/CMM and the team members themselves are the most central stakeholders to the assessment process3.

Washington-Based Stakeholders

The number and identity of participants and stakeholders in Washington, D.C. will vary, but will almost always include, at minimum, DCHA/CMM and the Country Desk Officer, as well as selected country backstops. If technical issues are included in the assessment, then technical experts in Washington may also be involved. In some cases, it may also be desirable to involve representatives from the State

Department and Department of Defense. In these situations, staff from the Office of Civilian-Military

Cooperation (USAID/DCHA/CMC) and S/CSO may also be invited to meetings and to share their input.

Field-Based Stakeholders

As noted earlier, it is essential for the Field Mission to identify a POC for the assessment. This individual is often the Democracy and Governance Officer, but could also be from a number of other functions at the Mission, including the Program Office. If a Regional Conflict Advisor has been deployed nearby, that

3 In circumstances when the assessment team is particularly large or when there is considerable interagency involvement, it may make sense to distinguish between a ―core team‖ and ―extended team‖ to describe different individuals involved in conducting the assessment.

individual may be involved as a key stakeholder as well. The assessment team lead should encourage the

Mission POC to notify the Embassy and alert the Ambassador and others of the intention to conduct an assessment. It is extremely important to receive clear approval from the Ambassador early on in the assessment process.

2.1.4 Assessment Team Composition

The assessment team is comprised of those individuals who will conduct the assessment. In general, a

USAID conflict assessment team consists of roughly four to six individuals, including one or more representatives of DCHA/CMM, one or more representatives from the USAID Mission (including, where possible, a Foreign Service National, or FSN), a consultant, and a translator.4 Benefits of this structure include:

1. Increased opportunity for learning among all parties, especially for the Mission;

2. Increased ease with which the participating Mission will take ―ownership‖ of the findings once the assessment is complete; and,

3. Increased sensitivity on the part of the assessment team to handle and convey delicate conflict-related questions, particularly among Mission personnel and within the U.S. Government.

Broadly speaking, there are important comparative advantages to including personnel from each of the three backgrounds, as outlined in the following table.

Representation Comparative Advantage

This table is not intended to be a “job description,” but rather a suggestive catalogue of unique skills and perspectives that is needed for an assessment team.

Mission Personnel As Missions are typically the primary end-user of the assessment‘s findings and final report, including Mission staff matters a great deal. Key stakeholders from the Mission must be included on the assessment team in order for it to achieve the overall aims of a conflict assessment.

Mission personnel and FSNs in particular bring knowledge of local culture and cultural sensitivity. USAID Missions and Embassies are also the proper liaisons to host country governments and the USG interagency.

CMM Staff The role of the CMM representative, when present, is to be the lead expert on technical and methodological issues surrounding the CAF. This individual also manages the analytical process and synthesis of findings, as described later in this report. CMM staff brings technical expertise in conflict issues, as well as knowledge of how different USG operating units in different countries have utilized assessments effectively.

Consultants Consultants often play a lead role in drafting the final report, and they can provide immediate technical and logistical support to fill gaps in personnel or to meet tight deadlines. National security classification systems, however, can present barriers to a consultant‘s full participation. There can also be limitations to USG involvement, such as restrictions on travel, 4 There can, of course, be limitations to USG involvement including the following: inability to travel to less secure areas of a country, perceived bias or conflict of interest of USAID personnel in talking to some interviewees or recommending programs, and the ability to commit and participate as a full team member. In these select cases, making greater use of external consult-ants, or working through civil society partners, may be a preferable approach to conducting an assessment.

potential perceptions of bias, and simple staffing constraints.

When conducting large scale or interagency assessments, certain adjustments to the team structure and approach may be necessary. For example, as more team members are added, the facilitation and management tasks will increase. Hiring a dedicated facilitator for meetings is one option. Establishing

―core‖ and ―extended‖ teams, or other such groupings, is another option. One approach to consider is to divide the role of lead writer. One individual can primarily focus on the technical content of the work while the team leader/manager handles the increased logistical work and financial management that will be required for a larger assessment team. No matter how large the group of stakeholders is, core team members, and at least two report writers, should be fully involved for the entire duration of the assessment.

When there are six or more team members, it is advisable to divide them into sub-teams. The team leader will negotiate with the team members and POC to assign roles and divide up responsibilities.

Ideally, there should be at least one person per sub-team with strong technical knowledge of conflict issues and the CAF methodology. With this in mind, the team can be subdivided either geographically or thematically.

Regardless of the team size and the way it is structured, all assessment teams should have capacity in certain skill sets. These skills are listed in the chart below. It may be possible to find a single team member with two or more of these skills and, therefore, each skill identified in the table below is not necessarily filled by a separate person.

Requisite Skills for Conflict Assessments

Skill Type Description

Conflict Expertise

It is essential that the team include someone who has experience in conflict settings and is familiar with the literature surrounding the causes and consequences of violent conflict. This person should be familiar with the Conflict

Assessment Framework, be committed to its implementation in the field, and be able to include the methodology in the report itself.

Country Expertise

The team should include at least one individual with deep knowledge of the country and/or region. Ideally a local, the country expert(s) should also have a strong understanding of USAID programs and approaches in the subject country.

Facilitation At least one member of the team should be skilled in leading large group discussions in an unbiased manner. This skill is particularly important for large teams that include representatives from a range of participating agencies. It can also be useful when focus groups are included as a key interviewing method.

Writing The lead writer should have proven experience writing assessment-type documents for a government audience. Other members of the team may be expected to write specific sections of the assessment as agreed upon with the team leader.

Management / Leadership

The team leader is expected to exercise leadership regarding airing substantive issues, communicating with USAID/USG, and managing interpersonal dynamics, process, and logistics. Prior experience in managing or leading a field team, particularly USAID assessment teams, is preferred. Ideally, the team leader will also have strong research and analytical skills, particularly if the lead writer is not a separate team member. Responsibilities will include: ensuring proper data collection methods, coordinating meetings, making travel arrangements, collecting receipts, and managing petty cash.

Data Collection and Analysis

At least one member of the team, who may also be the country expert or team leader, should have robust experience with data collection methodologies. This work may include experiences with focus groups, key informant interviews, surveys, etc. S/he should also have the ability to lead the analysis and to combine local field-based research with broader analytical trends and observations. This work includes explaining and applying findings and recommendations following the assessment.

Logistics This individual should have enough local knowledge to deal with local travel and security arrangements, to set up meetings, to rent ―safe‖ meeting space, and to understand the security situation and related procedures, etc. It is also optimal to have a USAID logistics coordinator in the field. This person serves several roles:

informing implementing partners, etc. of the assessment; preparing official USG correspondence as needed by the team; and, when necessary, setting up USG meetings.

Interpreter/ Translator

A translator might be used to go through key documents and data in local language(s). If a team is splitting up to cover different regions and lacks local language skills, multiple translators may be needed. Translators should have experience in the technical area of work and be perceived as neutral by interlocutors. It is seldom a good idea to rely on team members with local language skills for interpretation, not because their skills might not be good, but because it makes it difficult for them to fulfill their main role.

Identity Dynamics on the Assessment Team

All people have identities that both influence their perspectives, as well as influence how others perceive them. These identities can include different ethnic backgrounds, religious affiliations, nationalities, and political orientations. It is important to be attentive to how the identities of the core team members may affect how the team is perceived in-country, how the team interprets the data it collects, and how the team operates internally.

If FSNs, for example, have been active in a dominant political party or opposition movement, or if they come from an identity group salient to the conflict, this fact may influence the shape of the assessment.

In other cases, USAID staff may have been working on a particular program of relevance to the assessment for a long time and, therefore, may have very strong feelings that need to be artfully navigated. Lastly, gender can exert a powerful but subtle influence across the spectrum and underscores the necessity of establishing gender balance on the team, particularly when gender sensitivity is needed for interviews with host country nationals.

2.1.5 Formalizing the Discussion

Once consensus has been established on the general scope and shape of the assessment, it can be formalized through an invitation to conduct an assessment. The invitation should preferably originate from the Mission Director and be addressed to the Director of CMM.

In addition to the formal invitation, CMM and the USAID Mission should draft and agree to a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will serve as the ―charter‖ of the assessment process and identify the members of the assessment team. The MOU may also be referred to as the

Statement of Work (SOW), although it is not to be confused with the Scope of Work (SOW) between USAID and the Contractor (see next section). The MOU defines expectations about the inputs that will be needed for the assessment process, and it addresses topics such as the purpose of the assessment, key questions to be investigated, the composition of the team, and approximate timing.

The following is a list of key points to consider:

The MOU must be conveyed to the Mission Director well before any major planning, invest-ment or contracting is underway. It is one of the most important items to have in the early stages of the assessment.

Maintaining open and frequent communication with all members of the assessment team is cru-cial. Regular teleconferences with staff in the field, weekly updates via email, and the use of new web tools are all at the team‘s disposal. In some cases, expectations about the frequency and format of communication will be documented in the MOU.

The MOU helps the Mission and the USG to clarify key relationships and serves as a vehicle for circulating information and soliciting input on the assessment.

For a sample MOU/SOW, refer to Annex D.

2.2 PREPARATION

The preparation phase includes four key components:

1. Developing a Scope of Work

2. Preparing an Assessment Support Document

3. Conducting Washington-Based Consultations

4. Arranging Pre-Departure Logistics

2.2.1 Scope of Work

The Scope of Work (SOW) is the agreement between USAID and a contractor to provide assessment support services, including consultants if needed. It describes the structure of the assessment and outlines the expected outputs and results. The SOW should not be confused with the Statement of

Work, i.e. the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between CMM and the USAID Mission, which is described in the previous section.

A typical Scope of Work includes sections outlined in the table below.

Elements of a Conflict Assessment Scope of Work (SOW)

1. Background This section provides a brief description of the conflict and its relevance to

USAID or the USG, including a description of any strategies, programs, or policies that are of relevance to the assessment‘s purpose.

2. Purpose This section articulates the objectives of the conflict assessment, including how the assessment findings will be used to inform decision-making.

3. Methodology This section identifies the basic framework for data collection and analysis as described in the CAF 2.0. It describes the assessment‘s basic steps and highlights data collection techniques that will be employed. It also outlines the requirements for pre-departure preparation, desk study/literature review, field work, analysis, briefings, and post-deployment writing.

4. Team Requirements This section describes team requirements in terms of skill sets, rather than individual roles. Requisite skill sets include: conflict expertise, country expertise, facilitation, report writing, management/leadership, data collection and analysis, logistics, and interpretation/translations. (See

Section 2.1.4).

5. Technical Direction This section outlines the details of any particular approaches to data collection. Frequently-used data collection methods include: interviews, roundtables, focus group discussions, observations, perception surveys, and review of existing literature or quantitative data.

6. Deliverables This section describes the contractor‘s expected deliverables. Typically, these requirements include participation in pre-departure analysis and planning, field work research, in-brief and out-brief presentations to the

USAID Mission and other stakeholders, preparation and submission of a draft and final report, and related technical support.

7. Timeframe/Schedule This section describes the expectations around the timeframe needed for the assessment. The schedule should allow sufficient leeway to USAID to accommodate unexpected changes in plans.

8. Budget and Level of Effort

Depending on the needs of the assessment and type of contractual instrument employed, this section may or may not provide estimates of personnel time (Level of Effort, or LOE) and other acceptable costs, such as for transportation, security, or the use of a survey instrument.

For more detailed guidance on developing a SOW, refer to the supplemental Guidance for SOW available from DCHA/CMM.

2.2.2 Assessment Support Document

The assessment support document is an analytical tool that provides support to the process and the team with a common reference point. It may take a variety of forms. Frequently, it takes the form of a desk study, which presents relevant data and background about the country. This information can range from a relatively straightforward presentation of facts to a more synthesized analytic document.

Literature reviews and issues papers can also orient the assessment team to the salient perspectives and issues of the conflict or country. In some cases, enough is known about the conflict dynamics in question that the document becomes a rough draft or preliminary outline of the ultimate report. This latter approach, however, must be tempered by the need to conduct fresh, objective, and timely analysis that reflects current realities. Regardless of the approach taken, one of the most useful functions an assessment support document is to assist the team to formulate focused lines of inquiry based on preliminary conflict diagnosis and identified gaps in current knowledge.

For more information on preparing and utilizing assessment support documents, refer to the supplemental guidance on that topic available from DCHA/CMM.

Data

The preparation of the Assessment Support Document is the best opportunity to collect and report on the facts relevant to the conflict diagnosis, especially as related to the context. Comprehensive sources for high-quality data include:

• USAID Assessment Reports

• USAID Economic Analysis and Data Services (EADS)5

• State Department Country Reports and Cables

• CIA World Fact Book

• Economist Intelligence Unit

• OECD

• The World Bank

• United Nations Agencies

Needless to say, not all contextual information lends itself to quantification. For this reason, other assessments—particularly conflict and democracy/governance assessments—by USAID or its development partners should also be reviewed. Country and program reports from U.S. Government agencies and reputable NGOs (non-advocacy)—such as the U.S. Institute of Peace or the International

Crisis Group—may also be very helpful.

2.2.3 Washington-Based Consultations

In conjunction with preparing the desk study or support document, the assessment team should arrange for Washington-based consultations to inform the analysis and planning. Usually, this consultation process involves both individual interviews and a roundtable. Consultations should incorporate USG stakeholders, development partner representatives, country/regional analysts, and others.6

The purpose of the roundtable is to identify the most salient issues relevant to the conflict and to formulate the central hypotheses that need to be explored during the field work and data collection phase. Ideally, the desk study will serve as the basis for discussion. This is not a place for producing concrete findings and recommendations, but, rather, to set an agenda for further research. Those at the roundtable may also be able to alert the assessment team to areas of particular political sensitivity in the country.

Roundtable discussions should remain informal and academic in nature, without the need for expert facilitation. Having a note-taker, however, is desirable to ensure that useful suggestions are recorded and that proceedings are shared with team members in the field. Generally, a roundtable requires about half a day to complete.

2.2.4 Pre-Departure Logistics

In the lead up to the field work, there are two over-arching logistical priorities:

1. Arranging international travel for the team to the assessment country.

2. Planning in-country travel for the team.

5 USAID‘s Knowledge Service Center (KSC) and Economic Analysis and Data Services (EADS) may provide useful support in locating and analyzing data.

6 Frequently, participants are drawn from academic institutions, knowledgeable NGOs (non-advocacy), other bilateral or multi-lateral donors, think tanks, or other research bodies like the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars or the U.S. Institute of

Peace.

http://eads.usaidallnet.gov/

Of course, making progress on logistical planning depends on how much progress has been made on the SOW and the preliminary work on team composition.

International Travel

Procedures for making international travel arrangements vary considerably according to the status of the traveler—U.S. Direct Hire, Institutional Contractor, Consultant, etc.—and are not discussed in this document.

The assessment‘s dates, however, should be firmly established between the team lead and the Mission and clearly listed in the SOW prior to booking any travel. Teams will find it valuable to schedule their arrival in-country well enough in advance of work days to adjust to the time zone difference and to resolve any last-minute logistical details. If altitude or extreme climate is an issue in the assessment country, then it would be prudent to allow for sufficient adjustment time.

In-Country Travel Planning: Pre-Departure

While it is critical to begin planning in-country work assignments and logistics well in advance of departure, it is unlikely that all details will be finalized before the full assessment team—including staff at the Mission—has had a chance to hold initial meetings.

Mission policies vary in the level of access and support afforded to non-USG consultants. In some instances, consultants (non-USG) will not be allowed to utilize Mission computers or Mission space. It is important to clarify Mission policies well in advance to avoid embarrassment and to allow for time to make appropriate adjustments to work schedules.

For USG staff, it is not unreasonable to expect the Mission to provide logistical support in the form of vehicles and local lodging arrangements. In those situations where the assessment is conducted principally by consultants, or when there are restrictions on USG staff movement outside the capital city or in the country, then the team will need to rely on local-hire consultants to provide logistical support.

The budget should reflect these needs.

Putting a single person in charge of the logistical planning will help streamline communication and ensure that important items do not slip off the agenda. It is ideal if the local-hire consultants can plan the itinerary, make logistical arrangements, begin scheduling interviews, conduct pre-interviews, etc. prior to the core team‘s arrival in the country.

Some helpful questions to ask include the following:

Logistical Questions

Pre-Planning/International Travel - How early should the team arrive in-country? Is altitude ad-justment likely to pose a problem? Where will the team stay in the capital? Has the Embassy been notified of, and given its approval for, the assessment? How much support is the Mission able and willing to provide?

Security - What is the security situation? Are there travel restrictions for USG team members?

Travel Itinerary/Field Work - Who will be the primary person responsible for planning logistics?

Where are the teams going? How will meetings be arranged in the field? Are translation or in-terpretation services needed? Does the team have a plan in place to maintain objectivity and conduct critical analysis?

Team Composition - Is the team composed primarily of USG personnel or consultants? Will there be sub-teams? How will they be divided? Does each team have key skills?

Transportation - How many vehicles and drivers are available? Can the team drive? Do they need to fly?

Communications - How will teams communicate (internally, across locations, and with the Mis-sion/Embassy)? How often will the team regroup during the assessment? How frequently will the teams check-in and engage in planning?

2.3 ORIENTATION

The orientation phase covers the assessment team‘s first several days in-country. During this time, there are three main tasks to accomplish:

1) Building the assessment team;

2) Developing a relationship among the team and stakeholders; and

3) Finalizing the data collection process and associated logistics.

This list is not necessarily intended to be sequential. Collectively, the orientation tasks will take approximately 1½ to 2½ days at the outset of the in-country field work. Orientation cannot be abbreviated.

2.3.1 Building the Team

Teambuilding…