In search of impact: Laurie Lee on his new role at CARE

The new head of CARE International U.K. wants to examine and improve how the nongovernmental organization measures impact, and maintain a clear focus on its areas of expertise, he told Devex in an exclusive interview in London. CARE does gather data to better understand what works, said Laurie Lee, who joined the U.K. member of the 13-country confederation in August, but impact measurement is “always challenging in development work … It’s just so important — I want to make sure we are as good as we can be.” Lee said he was “not coming in with a vision of wholesale change” at CARE — but did not rule out “radical change in certain areas.” He brings core advocacy expertise from his previous role as Africa director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, where he led a team working on policy, advocacy and government relations, and oversaw the setup of new offices in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. Lee now finds himself on the implementing side at CARE, which has a 70-year history of delivering humanitarian and development assistance and today works in more than 80 countries. While the U.K. affiliate saw its overall income decline 10 percent from 2012 to 2013, income from corporate partners increased 8 percent, reaching 4.9 million pounds ($8 million) last year. Such partnerships are a positive trend and should continue, Lee confirmed. “Working with the private sector is at the heart of addressing the underlying causes of poverty,” he said. Read on for more insights from our conversation: You joined CARE just a few weeks ago — how much of a shift are you experiencing in terms of the organizational culture or mindset? Gates Foundation and CARE have done lots of work together. We’ve a shared, broad sense of the mission of wanting to end poverty and some of the ways that can be done. So there are some commonalities between the two, but obviously they’re different and they play different roles. For me, one of the motivations for coming to CARE was to work in an organization that’s actually implementing programs on the ground, and to get that bit closer to their work — Gates obviously does lots of its work through partners, so that’s the big difference. Are there any particular approaches or ways in which things are done at Gates Foundation that you’re bringing to CARE? All organizations have lots to learn from each other … One thing that Gates Foundation is really good at is being focused and saying, “Of all these really important things going on which affect poor people in developing countries, we’ll have the most impact by selecting some and really knowing those issues.” That’s always a challenging discipline for any organization … CARE has a clear set of areas that we work in, so hopefully some of what I’ve learned at Gates Foundation will help us stick to that and make sure that we have a real impact on the things we have chosen to focus on. One of the things that the Gates Foundation is really known for is its focus on data and measuring impact. That’s a challenge for all organizations working in development, but one that CARE certainly wants to take up, and [we want to] look at new ways for using technology, using our presence on the ground to make sure we are really gathering data, learning what works and what doesn’t work. At Gates Foundation I was particularly involved in advocacy and policy — even a foundation as big as Gates was very clear that on its own it was not going to be able to end poverty, and so it worked a lot with other organizations, advocating to governments and the private sector about what they also needed to do. [At CARE] we see it the same way: We try to make sure that we have lasting change in what we are doing directly on the ground, but we always want to be sure that we have the biggest possible impact that we can — and that involves working to influence government systems, to influence markets and companies, and to influence behavior of people as well, beyond the immediate communities we’re working with. CARE does a lot of work on advocacy — and I’ve a lot of experience of that from Gates and hopefully there are some things that I can bring. In general, will we see more change or continuity here, in terms of internal structure or staffing for instance? I’m in week [seven] here, so haven’t made final decisions on those things yet. Like any organization, there’s room to improve and we are looking to do that. At the same time, I think CARE is in good shape and the team who’s been working here for many years has been doing a good job in terms of keeping focused on our priorities. So I’m not coming in with a vision of wholesale change — but I’m certainly not ruling out that we might need to make radical change in certain areas. You mentioned focus. CARE does both humanitarian and development work in numerous sectors. Is it trying to do too much? Will that change? It’s really hard to ever say a humanitarian organization is doing too much when there is so much need out there. I think the crucial thing is, are you having the most impact that you can have? That certainly means that in some areas you need to focus. We think it’s important to work on both humanitarian and longer-term development, but we have our focuses in each of those areas. Within the humanitarian sector, we’re very focused on shelter, as well as sanitation, reproductive health and food security, [while] other organizations focus on things like education or other aspects of health. So we have teams which are focused and have the technical expertise on that — and similarly in development and on advocacy. What role do CARE’s private sector partnerships play, and will we see that growing? For CARE, working with the private sector is at the heart of addressing the underlying causes of poverty, and its good experience of engaging constructively with the private sector is definitely one of the things that attracted me to work here. Three main things come from working with the private sector. One of these is scale — by working with a company that is touching millions and millions of people our work can have a lot more scale. An example of that is our work with Mondelez, which has millions of farmers in its supply chain: We’re working with them in particular in Ghana and Ivory Coast to ensure that farmers can make a better living through improving the quality of the product and how the whole value chain works. That allows us to have far [broader impact] than, say, if we were running projects in individual farms. A second thing is sustainability … if including the poor in a positive way can become a natural part of the way that they do business, then we can step away and that work will carry on. A good example of that is our work with GSK, which has committed 20 percent of its profits in least developed countries to be reinvested in health services in those countries. We’re working with them in Asia … to recruit and train new health workers, funded by GSK but in partnership with the government. A combination of that financial commitment and working with the government is going to achieve real sustainability. The third thing from working closely with business is the opportunity for innovation [and] partnerships can lead to innovation on both sides … There are other things business brings, in terms of ability to innovate: the pace at which they work, the data which they can generate, and obviously some of the investment they can put in. An example of that would be our partnership with Barclays and Plan International in supporting village savings and loans associations … We started to see in some villages that groups were starting to save so much that it was becoming a risk that money was just held physically, and also that they could be earning more interest if linked to the formal financial sector. So we’ve been innovating new ways to get them linked to a proper bank account, sometimes through local banks, and we’re also looking at ways how that might be linked up with mobile banking. We’re seeing many international NGOs build up their presence in developing countries. Will we see this happen at CARE? Some of what were previously country offices of CARE have become full members — stand-alone legal entities that are members of the federation. India now is a full member, Thailand too, and Peru and Brazil are on the way — so we’re starting to see that happen. I think that’s a very natural thing to imagine continuing, as CARE’s work in those countries grows and as those countries prosper and are able to do more themselves. What about mergers? Is this something that an INGO like CARE should be thinking about? There’s a role for mergers in the charity sector as there is in the private sector … it’s not top of my mind right now. I think it’s important that when it’s done, it’s done for the right reasons and in the right way. I don’t think you can say they’re always good or always bad — you have to look at it case by case. There’s a certain amount of political uncertainty in the U.K. at the moment — is that something you’re concerned about? Obviously elections are a cyclical thing that we’re used to in a democracy … [But] fundamentally the political landscape in the U.K. for development is very strong. We have good cross-party consensus and a lot of very active people in the British public who support development work. The economic situation over the past couple of years has been a challenge, but I think both the political and public commitment to development have been sustained, so I don’t feel that it’s particularly a moment of huge uncertainty. You were previously involved in the 2005 G-8’s historic pledges on Africa and poverty — is the context in which you’re working today very different? It was an amazing time. There was a huge expression of public support for development. But it’s not possible to be at that peak at all times; a lot of things had to come together. There were some big political opportunities with the U.K. hosting the G-8 and the EU [presidencies] at the same time — that’s just not going to happen very often. But I think that it was also a demonstration of the kind of core, bedrock level of support that there is in this country among the public and political leaders for development … and if you think about what this country is investing in development, it’s significantly higher today than it was in 2005. Check out more insights and analysis provided to hundreds of Executive Members worldwide, and subscribe to the Development Insider to receive the latest news, trends and policies that influence your organization.