Church Partnership Program

Phase 4.1: July 2022 to December 2025 &

Phase 4.2: January 2026 to December 2029
Component 4: Building Community Engagement in Papua New
Guinea (BCEP) Program

Component Design Document

Date: version 4, 17th May, 2022

Investment Design Title: Church Partnership Program Phase 4

Start Date: 1 July 2022 End Date: 31 December 2025

Total proposed DFAT funding: Total proposed funding from all donor/s: N/A
AUD 28m for 3.5 years
(+ potential 4 year extension for up to AUD 32m)

Current program fund annual allocation: AUD 8m Aid Works investment number: N/A

Overall Risk Profile: high Risk: high

Value

BCEP Concept approved by: BCEP Concept endorsed by AGB:

Bruce Davis, High Commissioner, Port Moresby 3 March 2020 (as part of BCEP)
Yes

Approval: Delegate at Post:

Jon Philp, High Commissioner, Port Moresby

1
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Executive Summary
Since 2004, the governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea (PNG) have worked in partnership
with PNG’s seven ‘mainline’ churches to promote ‘holistic, inclusive, and sustainable development’ 1
under the Church Partnership Program (CPP). Representing 71% of the country’s Christian population,
these churches wield enormous social influence and deliver half the country’s health and education
services, reaching many rural and remote areas where government services are limited.

The seven mainline churches are the Anglican Church, Baptist Union, Evangelical Lutheran Church,
Roman Catholic Church, The Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist Church, and the United Church.
They include PNG’s largest church, the Catholic Church, as well as one of its smaller churches, The
Salvation Army. Over three CPP phases, these churches have worked in partnership with Australian
non-government organisations (ANGOs) from their sister Australian churches; as well the mainline
churches ‘peak’ body, the PNG Council of Churches (PNGCC), and governments from each country. All
partners have committed to continue into a fourth phase of the program.

While identifying as PNG ‘mainline’ churches, each has very different theological and organisational
cultures and traditions (see section 2). Yet, through CPP, they have developed norms and processes
for collaboration and shared learning. With the support of ANGO partners, they have produced joint
theologically based approaches to development (2014) and gender equality (2015); and, through the
current CPP Charter, solidified their common purpose for working together (most recently updated in
July 2021). The development of this Component Design Document (CDD) has benefited from these
established collaboration processes. However, in the next phase, the continuation of the current high
levels of CPP partner collaboration cannot be assumed, rather, they must be carefully nurtured and
guarded.

Integrating the fourth phase of CPP under BCEP

The fourth phase of CPP will be delivered under the major new Australia-PNG governance initiative,
the Building Community Engagement in Papua New Guinea (BCEP) Program. The BCEP program brings
together a diverse group of partners from PNG’s most influential state and non-state organisations,
including civil society organisations, thinks-tanks, and the media. The long-term goal is to influence
citizen-government interaction, which is currently weak, to become more constructive and inclusive.
To achieve this, BCEP will create a portfolio of interventions that promote constructive citizen-
government engagement for jointly solving practical development problems, such as basic service
delivery issues, that will benefit the whole community, including women, marginalised and vulnerable
groups.

The next phase of CPP is designed as an integrated but distinct component of the BCEP program. CPP’s
end-of-program outcomes closely align with BCEP’s. CPP’s program logic identifies points for
engagement with other BCEP partners. CPP’s management and implementation arrangements include
processes for collaboration and learning with other BCEP partners. However, CPP will continue to be
led by its own apex governance decision-making body comprised of PNG church leaders, with ANGO,
PNG and Australian government representatives.

1 P. 11. July, 2021, CPP Charter

i
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Lessons learned
The fourth phase of CPP builds on the foundations and learning from past phases, with a focus on four
areas of direct relevance to BCEP: policy engagement, social accountability, GEDSI and partner
collaboration and localisation.

The CDD sets a program logic that brings these four areas together to achieve clear end of program
outcomes. Learning from the last phase, the design includes significant investment in fit-for-purpose
MEL systems at program (CPPCO) and CPP partner levels, as the backbone of effective
implementation. Innovative MEL approaches which enable monitoring of CPP’s progress in promoting
behaviour change and are in alignment with BCEP’s approach are proposed (see section 6).

Past CPP phases acknowledged the significant potential for CPP partners to have a positive influence
on PNG public policy and the importance of organisational capacity development for localisation,
including PNG partners taking over leadership of grant arrangements from ANGOs. However, neither
of these areas were actively supported in the last phase and progress has been slow. Learning from
this experience, the next phase dedicates significant program attention and resources to
organisational development/localisation and policy engagement. The design proposes
implementation pillars in each of these areas, with attached results to monitor progress (at output
and intermediate outcome levels).

Policy engagement remains a new area for most partners. However, in the current CPP Charter, all
partners have committed to ‘strengthen their engagement, and advocacy with PNG government at all
levels’. The integration of CPP into BCEP provides an opportunity for actively supporting PNG church
partners’ policy engagement and influencing. BCEP is designed to support evidence generation for
policy influencing as well as diverse policy engagement processes, including engaging the media and
developing coalitions for change.

The need for a dedicated focus on supporting and measuring organisational capacity development
was a clear learning from the last phase. While all CPP PNG church partners require some
organisational support, each is at a different level of readiness for localisation and will have flexibility
to pursue this objective on an “opt-in” basis, consistent with the CPP-3 Mid Term Review
recommendation (see Annex 5).

Past CPP phases have laid the groundwork for significant progress on GEDSI and social accountability
in the fourth phase. At the end of phase 3, CPP partners worked with faith-based INGO (Tearfund) to
design projects for the development of each PNG church partner organisation’s own approach to
social accountability. The essential first step is embedding an understanding of accountability within
each church organisation.

With the development of the “Gender equality Theology,” CPP partners made significant progress
over the last phase in building church acceptance of the importance of GEDSI and laying the
foundations for influencing negative community attitudes. The effectiveness of this work can be
improved with better monitoring of how attitudes are changing or not.

Program outcomes and logic

Goal and end of program outcomes
The long-term CPP-4 goal is: “to improve delivery of public services and goods to vulnerable and
marginalised communities.” ‘Vulnerable and marginalised communities’ are defined as including
women, people accused of sorcery, people living with disabilities, and people in rural and remote

ii
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

communities. This CPP goal has the same focus on service delivery as BCEP’s goal: “to strengthen
citizen-government engagement for improved service delivery and provision of public goods.”

CPP’s end -of-program outcomes make clear that, like BCEP, CPP sees strengthening the interaction
between the community and public authorities as the means for improving the development and
implementation of policies for the delivery of public services. The term ‘public authorities’ is use to
cover not just ‘state authority’ but the authority that churches have in providing services on behalf of
the government. The CPP program will focus on engaging with and influencing both sets of public
authorities.

The CPP goal is to be achieved through two end of program outcomes supported by four program
pillars. The CPP outcomes also contribute to BCEP’s end of program outcomes:

• CPP contributes to BCEP EO1 “Selected state and non-state actors collaborate effectively to
tackle targeted development problems” through the CPP EO1 “Government and Church
communities constructively engage to deliver inclusive development outcomes.” Two CPP
pillars will directly contribute to this end outcome: 1) information access and evidence
generation; and 2) social accountability.
• CPP contributes to BCEP EO2 “Targeted PNG decision-makers explicitly integrate gender
equality and inclusive social norms into efforts to tackle targeted development problems”
through CPP EO2 “Government and Church decision-makers actively promote gender
equality, disability, and social inclusion.” CPP pillar 3 will directly contribute to this end
outcome through efforts to use the Gender Equality Theology to promote GEDSI.

CPP’s pillar 4 will maximise change on both CPP EOs through processes to support collaboration,
learning and join actions among CPP and BCEP partners.

Intermediate outcomes
The CPP’s four program pillars will work together to achieve end of program outcomes through
intermediate outcomes under each pillar as follows:
1. Information access and evidence generation pillar will focus on ensuring that a) communities
have access to the information they need for constructive engagement with government and/or
problem solving and b) evidence is generated from their church activities to inform CPP partners
policy dialogue with public authorities (government and church) leading to the making of better
policies that achieve more inclusive development outcome. The intermediate outcomes are:
1.1 CPP partners deliver selected services/activities in thematic priority areas with improved
monitoring & evaluation for generating policy evidence
1.2 CPP partners constructively engage with government in policy processes, individually and
collectively (through the PNGCC and/or BCEP coalitions for change), utilizing evidence as
appropriate
1.3 Church community members demonstrate increased awareness on selected public
issues.

2. Social accountability pillar involves developing CPP partners capacity to implement social
accountability initiatives. The focus is on building the capacity of CPP partners to use social
accountability approaches to facilitate constructive engagement between the community and
public authorities (government and church). This is expected to lead to the solving of practical
development problems, including in the delivery of basic services. Successful social accountability
interventions rely on the work under pillar 1. Namely, the community requires access to

iii
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

information on the problem and their rights, and the government needs policy solutions based on
evidence. The intermediate outcomes are:
2.1 CPP partners develop their own church social accountability approaches
2.2 CPP partner facilitate community members to constructively engage with government
and/or church authorities in church accountability pilot projects
2.3 PNGCC facilitates the generation and sharing of CPP partner’s learning and evidence on
social accountability

3. Gender Equality Theology and GEDSI Pillar is focussed on changing negative gender and social
attitudes that are commonly held in PNG towards women, people with disability and other socially
excluded groups. The focus is on influencing change within church organisations by focussing on
the attitudes of church leaders and ensuring church policies are inclusive; as well as seeking to
directly influence the attitudes of community members. This pillar continues, with increased
ambition, the significant work CPP partners have done in past phases to provide services to
women and other vulnerable groups. Work in this pillar will leverage the CPP Gender Equality
Theology. This pillar will also help to ensure that social accountability initiatives (pillar 2) as well
as information access and evidence activities (pillar 1) are inclusive of women and other
vulnerable groups. The intermediate outcomes are:
3.1 Selected Church leaders demonstrate gender equal and socially inclusive attitudes
3.2 Selected Church policies are revised to align with the GET and GEDSI
3.3 Community members demonstrate gender and socially inclusive attitudes

4. Partner Development and Collaboration Pillar will underpin the work across all three pillars
above. The first part of this pillar is focussed on building PNG church partners' organisational
capacity and resilience, with the flexibility to pursue localisation on an 'opt-in' basis. The CPP
capacity development process will support CPP partners to assess needs, define capacity support
and plan and measure gains made, with a particular focus on strengthening GEDSI, MEL and
financial management. The second part of this pillar is focussed on facilitating collaboration and
learning between CPP partners to maximise their collective impact. To facilitate collaboration, CPP
will build on the norms and processes developed in previous phases as well as broker engagement
with other BCEP partners. The modality of thematic working group, led by specific CPP partners,
will continue; and a new modality of ‘standing committees’ devoted to sharing learning on
common internal organisational development areas (MEL, financial management, GEDSI) will be
created. The intermediate outcomes are:
4.1 PNG Church partners have increased organizational capacity for localisation
4.2 CPP partners collaborate for learning and produce common positions on selected issues
4.3 CPP partners contribute to BCEP learning and participate in selected joint actions

Management and governance arrangements

The governance arrangements from the current phase have been streamlined to increase efficiency
and maximise oversight by church leaders, working with DFAT, GoPNG and ANGO representatives in
the CPP apex governance body.

The responsibility for the delivery of the program rests with the managing contractor DFAT has
procured for BCEP. They will provide the team for the CPP Coordination Office (CPPCO) who will
manage CPP under the guidance of DFAT and the CPP apex governance body. The current DFAT Justice,
Accountability and Subnational Team within the Australian High Commission will remain responsible
for day-to-day program oversight, risk management and decision-making.

iv
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

The Strategic Development Team will continue into the next phase, but they will have a more strategic
role to conduct six monthly review and reflections of CPP performance against the program logic, and
membership will be expanded in include all ANGO partners alongside their PNG Church colleagues.
The CPPCO will facilitate review and reflection exercises, which will include DFAT and other key
stakeholders.

Compared with past phases, the role of the CPPCO goes beyond coordinating the program to include
proactive engagement with CPP partners to adding value to their work. The CPPCO will provide regular
feedback to CPP partners on their implementation progress, with suggestions for quality
improvements. Increased resources for provision and measurement of CPP partners’ capacity
development are proposed. The CPPCO will include long-term professional positions to provide
capacity development support (with a focus on GEDSI and MEL), facilitate learning, and manage
reporting. National professionals are preferred for these positions.

Delivery approach
The fourth phase of CPP is designed to achieve end of program outcomes at the end of 7.5 years of
implementation. This phase will be delivered over following two stages:

• CPP 4.1 – from July 2022 to December 2025

• CPP 4.2 – from January 2026 to December 2029

Continuation from the first stage (CPP 4.1) to the second (CPP 4.2) will be subject to adequate progress
against intermediate and end of program outcomes, as assessed by an independent review. At the
start of CPP 4.1, the full fourth phase will be set up in a six-month Inception Period (from July to
December 2022).

Each CPP partner is at a different level of readiness to pursue the results outlined in the CPP program
logic. For some partners, these results are highly ambitious and they may need spend much of CPP 4.1
adapting their activities and developing the capacity required to implement new activities. The
realistic progress that each partner can be expected to make will be determined in the Inception
period

DFAT has selected a Managing Contractor (MC) to manage the delivery of CPP as an integrated
component of BCEP. The MC will perform these functions through a BCEP Program Management Team
(PMT), and a CPP Coordination Office (CPPCO) (management arrangements are outlined in section 5).
Compared w CPPCO has a slightly different role from previous is to have an enhanced role to support
partners as detailed in section 4.3.

In the Inception period, the MC will develop a delivery approach that build mutually supportive
linkages across three delivery levels:

• BCEP: for building coordination and synergies for BCEP outcomes

• CPPCO: for partner capacity development support, shared learning and programming toward
collective
• CPP partners: for delivery of individual 3-year CPP partner plans to achieve outcomes

Strategies, processes, and support will flow down from the BCEP PMT through the CPPCO to CPP
partners. Conversely, results and learning will flow from the CPP partner level up through the CPPCO
to the BCEP level.

The CPPCO is a crucial link in the delivery chain. The CPPCO will work closely with the BCEP PMT to
interpret and apply strategies and processes to CPP, while working closely with CPP partners to

v
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

provide capacity development support and help them implement their plans. The CPPCO will filter,
aggregate, and analyse CPP partner results and facilitate collective forums to share and crystalise
learning, leading to joint actions. Most of the functions related to financial and risk management, DFAT
compliance and performance management will be performed by the BCEP PMT enabling the CPPCO
to focus on supporting CPP partners.

CPP is a complex and ambitious program working in high-risk operational environment and is rated a
high-risk program against DFAT’s Risks and Safeguard Tool. The MC will put in place robust risk
management processes in the Inception Period in accordance with DFAT policies, including fraud
prevention. These processes will provide the DFAT JAS Team with a clear line of sight over the CPP
delivery chain and enable the proactive identification and avoidance or mitigation of risks.

vi
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ i
CPP Partners and Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ viii
Acronym List .....................................................................................................................................ix
Glossary of key concepts ................................................................................................................... x
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 CPP’s Strategic rationale ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 BCEP’s Objectives and approach ......................................................................................... 2
1.3 Design methodology ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Document Structure ........................................................................................................... 3
2. Context and background ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Churches in the PNG Context .............................................................................................. 1
2.2 Churches policy engagement potential ............................................................................... 3
3. Lessons learned ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Development effectiveness................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Policy engagement and social accountability ...................................................................... 7
3.3 Gender, disability, and social inclusion................................................................................ 8
3.4 Partner organisational capacity development ................................................................... 10
4. Expected outcomes ................................................................................................................. 11
4.1 Program logic ................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 Explanation of logic .......................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Delivery approach............................................................................................................. 20
5. Management and Governance ................................................................................................ 25
5.1 Structure .......................................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Responsibilities................................................................................................................. 26
5.3 Transition and Inception deliverables ............................................................................... 29
6. Program monitoring, evaluation and learning ........................................................................ 29
6.1 MEL Principles .................................................................................................................. 30
6.2 Responsibility ................................................................................................................... 30
6.3 Implementation ................................................................................................................ 30
6.4 Data collection.................................................................................................................. 31
6.4 Planning and Reporting Cycles .......................................................................................... 31
6.5 Learning Processes ........................................................................................................... 32
6.6 Resources ......................................................................................................................... 33
6.6 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 33
7. Budget..................................................................................................................................... 34
7.1 High level Program budget breakdown ............................................................................. 34
8. Risk management and safeguards........................................................................................... 35
8.1 Key Risks and mitigation ................................................................................................... 35
8.2 Risk control policies and processes ................................................................................... 35

Annex (separate document)

1. Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
2. Risk and Safeguards Tool
3. Context and GEDSI Analysis
4. Stakeholders Consulted
5. MTR Recommendations

7
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

CPP Partners and Stakeholders

CPP Partners
PNG Church partners
Australian NGO partners
Church Responsible implementing unit
1. Anglican Church in PNG Anglicare PNG Anglicans in International Development 2

2. Baptist Union Baptist Union Secretariat Transform Aid International (TAI)

3. Evangelical Lutheran CPP Office, Support Services Department Australian Lutheran World Service (ALWS)
Church of PNG
4. Roman Catholic Church in Catholic Bishops Conference Development Caritas Australia
PNG Commission with Caritas PNG
5. The Salvation Arym (TSA) Development Unit, Department for The Salvation Army (TSA) Australia
PNG Programmes
6. Seventh Day Adventist Adventist Development and Relief Agency Adventist Development and Relief Agency
Church (ADRA) PNG (ADRA)
7. United Church PNG Development Unit, United Church PNG Uniting World

Other partners
Peak body: Papua New GoPNG: Department for Community GoA: Department of Foreign Affairs and
Guinea Council of Churches Development and Religion Trade
(PNGCC)
Key Stakeholders
Managing Contractor (MC)—responsible for managing the CPP Coordination Office
Various stakeholders—Christian Health Service, National Churches Education Council, Melanesian Institute, GoPNG
national ministries, departments and agencies, and provincial and local-level governments.

2 Name recently change from Anglican Board of Missions Australia

viii
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Acronym List
ADRA PNG Adventist Development and Relief Agency
ANGO Australian non-government organisations
BCEP Building Community Engagement in Papua New Guinea
CPP Church Partnership Program
CPPCO Church Partnership Program Coordination Office
DFAT Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
DfCDR Department for Community Development and Religion
ELCPNG Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea
GBV Gender based violence
GEDSI Gender equality, disability and social inclusion
GET Gender Equality Theology
GoPNG Government of Papua New Guinea
MC Managing contractor
MEL Monitoring, evaluation and learning
OoR Office of Religion
CDD Component Design Document
PGK Papua New Guinean Kina
PNG Papua New Guinea
PNGCC Papua New Guinea Council of Churches
PNGEA Papua New Guinea Evangelical Alliance
SARV Sorcery accusation related violence
SDA Seventh Day Adventists
SLG Senior Leadership Group
SCs Standing Committees (for example, in MEL, financial management)
ToC Theory of change
TSA The Salvation Army
TWG Thematic Working Group
UCPNG Uniting Church Papua New Guinea
USA United States of America
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

ix
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Glossary of key concepts

Concept Definition applied in this design document
Advocacy ‘Influencing the decisions, policies and practices of powerful decision-makers,
to address underlying causes of poverty, bring justice and support good
development’. (Tearfund CCM toolkit)
Collective Action When different parties (individuals and/or organisations) work together to
solve a specific problem. While the parties will have different interests for
working on the problem, each has incentives to influence change. Recent
research suggests that effective collective action requires an incentive
framework to be put in place whereby all parties demonstrate they are credibly
committed to achieving change in advance and act together to achieve the
change. 3
CPP Charter The design is underpinned by the following CPP Principles: locally focused and
Principles strength-based; inclusive and protection-based; participatory and respectful
collaboration; respectful communication; continuous learning and innovation.
CPP Partners Refers to the partnership between the PNG Church organisation, it’s
development unit, and their sister ANGO partner. Others program partners
(that is, PNGCC, GoA and GoPNG) are referred to by name.
Gudpela Sindaun A PNG measure of wellbeing and the common good; it reflects ‘a life in balance’
– balancing the rights of those who have been before, those who are here now
and those who are yet to come. Key to localisation of CPP, Gutpela Sindaun is
the platform to support CPP leadership, decision making and local solutions,
enabling transition from a Western model of wellbeing (Wealth) to a PNG
model of wellbeing (Abundant Life) in which family and community are
central’. 4
GEDSI Integrating gender equality, disability and social inclusion (GEDSI) more
Mainstreaming effectively in all activities, regardless of the sector or focus. 5.
GEDSI Targeted In addition to mainstreaming, CPP partners implement targeted GEDSI
activities and investments such as: safe houses, referral pathways,
partnerships with disabled people’s organisations, women’s organisations,
GBV and SARV response programs.
Localisation As an evolving field of practice in both development and humanitarian action,
there is no single definition of localisation. At DFAT, localisation in
development is understood as a ‘method to drive more effective development
outcomes by improving the agency of affected people and local actors
(including partner governments) so that development action is locally
informed, locally led and meets the needs of local people.’ 6 Most importantly,
good localisation is driven by an intention to localise.
Policy Defined broadly as specific actions based on a set of decisions. Many people
equate policy with legislation, but it also includes non-legislative decisions and
actions such as setting and implementing standards, allocating resources
between organisations, changing the levels of subsidies or taxes, or consulting
specific groups in the policy-making process. This document includes within
this definition of policy action, local activities to facilitate the community to
take collective action with government to solve local problems and develop
social accountability projects.

3 Adapted from Abt, November 2021, The Logic of Collective Action.

4
CPP Charter, July 2021
5
DFAT Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy 2016-2020
6
Localisation Note: DFAT’s Approach to Localisation (2021)

x
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Concept Definition applied in this design document

Policy influence The ‘goal to be achieved’, or evidence that an intervention has influenced
decisions and/or actions (often the intervention involves networking and the
generation of evidence).
Policy engagement The ‘means of achieving the goal of policy influence’. Better engagement may
lead to greater influence, although the opposite can be case, that is, greater
influence may lead to improved engagement. The relationship between these
two concepts will shaped by the policy context. 7 Approaches to policy
engagement are often defined as falling across spectrum from collaborative to
confrontational. Based on international experience, and in alignment with the
BCEP design, this paper argues that collaborative approaches are the most
constructive and effective in the PNG context.
PNG Church Refers to the PNG Church organisation including its development unit
partner
Social A process in which informed citizens hold governments to account for
accountability delivering quality public services and resources. Social accountability refers
specifically to the relationship between those who manage and provide public
services and citizens who use these services. Social accountability is different
from ‘higher level’ accountability relationships that focus on national level
policy making or election cycles. Social accountability is locally experienced: it
is a relationship that is most relevant to the daily life of citizens at the
community level who are concerned with getting access to local government
officials, monitoring local budget spending, and discussing the quality of
services. Those supporting social accountability believe that when citizens
engage with service providers, for example through participating in planning
local services, attending public meetings to improve quality or involvement in
oversight bodies, their views are more likely to be heard and to influence
government policy and practice leading to better quality services. 8
Social Norms Social norms are rules of conduct or models of behaviour expected by a society
or social group. These are rooted in customs, traditions and value systems that
develop and change over time. Social norms do not necessarily uphold ethical,
fair or inclusive values or behaviour. Gender norms are a sub-set of social
norms and define the expected roles of men and women. Hurtful and
exclusionary norms are those which disadvantage women and vulnerable
groups such as people with disabilities or those that are accused of sorcery in
PNG.
Twin-track Including both GEDSI mainstreaming across all activities and targeted GEDSI
approach to activities. This is considered good practice and is aligned with the DFAT Gender
GEDSI Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy (2016-2020) and Development
for All 2015-2020: Strategy for strengthening disability-inclusive development
in Australia’s aid program.

7
Adapted from ODI, 2014, ROMA: A guide to policy engagement and influence.
8
From ITAD, ‘What works for Social Accountability?’, Findings from DFID’s Macro Evaluation, Policy Briefing, June 2017.
Critics of social accountability however point to an ‘accountability trap’ in which the contribution to improved services
remains localised and short-lived if social accountability initiatives are not part of a more strategic intervention in policy
making

xi
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

1. Introduction
The Church Partnerships Program (CPP) is one of Australia’s most important and long-standing
development initiatives in Papua New Guinea (PNG). The CPP brings together partner organisations
from:

a) PNG’s seven mainline churches with their sister Australian churches Non-Governmental
Organisations (ANGOs) (see Table 1, p. iii)
b) the PNG Council of Churches,
c) the Department for Community Development and Religion (DfCDR), Office of Religion (OoR),
Government of PNG, and
d) the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Australian High Commission to PNG.

The first phase of CPP commenced in 2004 and the program, now in its third phase, is due for
completion in mid-2022. All partners have committed to a fourth phase that is to be delivered as a
central component of the new Australia-PNG development initiative, the Building Community
Engagement in Papua New Guinea (BCEP) Program. This document presents the design for CPP’s
fourth phase to be implemented over 7.5 years from mid-2022 to end-2029. The remainder of this
section outlines the strategic rationale for the fourth phase of CPP, the BCEP program’s objectives, the
design methodology and the structure for the rest of this component design document (CDD).

1.1 CPP’s Strategic rationale

The CPP forms a key part of the PNG-Australia Comprehensive Strategic and Economic Partnership
(2020), which defines how the two countries work together to build country-to-country linkages, and
support PNG’s growth, stability, and security. The agreement recognises ‘the role of religious
institutions, including churches, in strengthening communities and delivering vital services in PNG,
and commits to building links between religious institutions in each country’. 9 In an Indo-Pacific
context characterised by growing tensions and geo-strategic uncertainties, the established links
between sister churches in both countries strengthens the bilateral relationship.

The BCEP Program is designed to complement Australia’s other development investments in PNG and
promote DFAT policies, while working alongside the Government of PNG. The CPP will engage closely
with DfCDR, and Office of Religion (OoR) to build synergies with government service delivery and
policy-making processes.

From the start of the first phase, the rationale for CPP has been to strengthen the role that PNG’s
seven mainline churches play in the development of Papua New Guinea’s communities and the
delivery of vital services. Given that these churches constitute 71% of PNG’s Christian population,10
CPP has significant potential for impact at scale. Over three phases, the Program has worked
continuously with the same seven partners to strengthen how they work collectively, as well as
through their own church organisations, to increase impact. While past phases have recognised
churches potential influence on government policy, this potential is yet to be realised. The integration
of CPP into DFAT’s BCEP provides the framework for actively supporting partners to realise this policy
advocacy potential in the next phase.

9 https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/papua-new-guinea/papua-new-guinea-australia-comprehensive-strategic-and-economic-
partnership
10 According to the last national census in 2011

1
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

1.2 BCEP’s Objectives and approach

The BCEP program is designed to provide the high-level framework for CPP and other complementary
governance interventions. The BCEP goal is: ‘to strengthen citizen-government engagement for
improved service delivery and provision of public goods.’ 11 Currently, the interests of many PNG
citizens are not well represented in PNG’s policymaking and implementation processes, nor do PNG
citizens meaningfully participate in these processes. As a result, PNG’s development policies are not
meeting the needs of many its citizens, especially women, people with disabilities and other
vulnerable groups. The root cause of this problem is the weak interaction between the PNG
government and its citizens.

To promote this goal, the BCEP program brings together a diverse group of state and non-state actors,
representing different parts of PNG’s civil society (see box 1), to influence citizen-government
engagement to become more constructive (end outcome 1) and inclusive (end outcome 2). As
churches are so highly respected and influential with PNG communities and the state, they can make
an immense contribution to these outcomes, particularly if they work in concert with each other and
the BCEP’s broader partners.

For more constructive citizen-government engagement, BCEP’s first end of program outcome is that
‘Selected State and Non-State actors collaborate effectively to tackle targeted development
problems.’ BCEP will support initiatives that promote collaboration between state and non-state
actors (including churches) to solve practical development problems from which all parties stand to
benefit. Examples include making local service delivery more responsive to community needs and
influencing government resource allocations to better reflect community priorities.

To make citizen-government engagement more inclusive, BCEP’s second end of program outcome is
that ‘targeted PNG decision-makers explicitly integrate gender equality and inclusive social norms into
efforts to tackle targeted development problems.’ The routine exclusion of some social groups from
PNG’s public decision-making processes, particularly women, people with disabilities and other
vulnerable groups, results in decisions that disregard or discriminate against the needs and interests
of these groups. Deeply entrenched and discriminatory socio-cultural norms and traditions are the
root cause of this problem. BCEP will support leaders that challenge these discriminatory social norms
and positively promote gender equality and social inclusion.

Box 1: BCEP Components

The BCEP Program will be delivered through the following five components:
1. PNG Coalitions for Change: works with PNG CSOs to build coalitions of influential actors, including the
media and the churches, to achieve change on specific issues of national or subnational significance.
2. Media Partnerships: works with PNG media to strengthen their capacity to act as a watchdog over
government and give voice to citizens. This component will also assist other program partners, including
churches, to better engage the media to achieve their goals.
3. Social Accountability partnerships: supports INGOs/PNG CSOs to develop and implement social
accountability projects to achieve improvements in service delivery (experience and learning from this
component will be shared with CPP partners)
4. Church Partnerships: as described in this design document.
5. GoPNG Partnerships: works with selected GoPNG departments interested in improving their transparency
and citizen engagement: the Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DNPM); the Department of
Community Development and Religion (DfCDR); and the Department for Implementation and Rural
Development (DIRD). Specific support is to be designed in the BCEP inception phase.

11
Section D.2, DFAT, 2021, BCEP Investment Design Document

2
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

1.3 Design methodology

This Component Design Document (CDD) has been developed through a collaborative, consensus-
based approach with CPP partners and representatives of the Australian and PNG governments. The
Australian High Commission in Port Moresby engaged a design team to facilitate the process and
produce this CDD 12 (see Annex 4 for list of stakeholders consulted). Drafting instructions included
building on the learning and foundations of past phases (including recommendations of the Mid-Term
Review for phase three) and integrating the next phase into the BCEP program (see Annex 5). A mix of
international and national development professionals, including PNG CPP representatives, 13 made up
the design team.

The design process took place from August 2021 to April 2022 during the height of the COVID-19
pandemic in Australia and PNG. The international design team members were unable to travel to PNG
over this time and face-to-face meetings with partners and other stakeholders in PNG were not
possible. While these circumstances created challenges for conducting a collaborative design process,
the design team adapted by making extensive use of communications technology (particularly Zoom),
drawing on the experience of the PNG professionals in the team, and adopting an iterative design
process with time for discussions with partners at each step along the way.

The first step of the design process involved individual consultations with all partners to discuss their
learning from past phases and organisational priorities for the next phase. From these and other
stakeholder consultations and document reviews, the design team prepared analysis on two key
potential areas of CPP focus – policy engagement and advocacy, and GEDSI (see Annex 3). Next, the
design team facilitated three online workshops with all church partners on central elements of the
CDD. 14 To help focus workshop discussion, the design team prepared papers to frame the issues under
consideration and shared these in advance. The full draft CDD was provided to all partners and
presented to Church leaders for feedback and endorsement.

1.4 Document Structure

The next section of this CDD provides important background information on churches in the PNG
context (section 2). Section 3 presents key lessons from past phases of CPP and the implications for
the next phase. The Program’s high-level outcomes and logic, with the delivery approach, are
explained in section 4. This is followed by the management and governance arrangements (section 5)
monitoring, evaluation and learning processes (MEL) (section 6), high-level budget (section 7) and key
risk and safeguard management arrangements (section 8). Supporting documents are provided in the
Annexure (including a draft monitoring and evaluation (MEL) framework with indicators at Annex 1).

12 The Justice, Accountability and Subnational Team of the Department for Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) at the Australia
High Commission (AHC) in Port Moresby commissioned a design team through the Quality Technical and Assurance Group
managed by OPM Australia.
13
The CPP provided an experienced manager from one of the partners as a core member of the design team and a senior
leader from the PNGCC to provide quality review and strategic advice.
14
The topics were: CPP’s outcomes and theory of change; aligning partner priorities with CPP outcomes; and
implementation arrangements

3
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

2. Context and background

The CPP’s PNG church partners are identified as PNG’s ‘mainline’ churches, 15 but each has very
different cultural, theological, and organisational histories. This section analyses the context of
church-state relations in PNG to understand how CPP can support partners to better engage with and
influence government policy and contribute to the BCEP goal of ‘strengthened citizen-government
engagement for improved service delivery and provision of public goods’. 16 The section summarises
some of the key institutional structures and incentives that shape CPP church partners different
relations to the PNG state and their interest in engaging on policy issues.

2.1 Churches in the PNG Context

The current relationship between churches, the state and the community originate in the missionary
period. The missionary period was characterised by increasing competition between faiths to
evangelise the population. This competition reinforced the multiple other social and cultural divides
already existing between PNG’s numerous language and kinship groupings.17 The period helps explain
the hundreds of denominations and faiths that are estimated to be operation in PNG today, 18 and
their presence in many remote and rural areas where the government has little reach. 19

Growth from the missionary period

Four CPP partners were a part of PNG’s first missionary wave, the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and
Uniting Churches. These churches arrived in the mid-19th century before the start of European
colonisation in 1884. As PNG decolonised over the latter part of 20th century, these churches
increasingly worked together. For example, they set up the Christian media company, Word Publishing
Company Ltd (which produces PNG’s only Tok Pisin newspaper) and the Christian policy think-tank,
the Melanesian Institute (based in Goroka). The other three CPP partners arrived in the early-to-mid
20th century (SDA, Baptist, and TSA) when there was an explosion of different Christian
denominations and faiths entered the country.

CPP partners are based in different parts of the country, with greatly varying numbers of followers,
reflecting their missionary histories. The Catholic Church has the largest following (26%) and the
Baptist and TSA, the smallest (at 0.4% each). Most partners have limited geographic coverage, and
mainly work in the places where missionary work was conducted. However, the Catholic Church has
the broadest national coverage followed by the Lutheran Church, which has the second largest
following (18.4% of Christians in 2011). 20 Both denominations are found throughout the country.
Establishing a strong presence in the highlands, the SDA are now the third largest and are also found
in most towns. Except for the SDA church (whose followers has increased from 10% to 13% of PNG’s
Christians), the number of people identifying with mainline Churches is either stable or declining
slightly in relative terms.

15 The use of the ‘mainline’ term in PNG differs significantly from its original use in the USA where it refers to the
traditional, established ‘protestant denominations of the USA in contrast with evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic
Protestant denominations’ (from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_Protestant
16
Section D.2, DFAT, 2021, BCEP Investment Design Document
17 Gibbs, Phillip 2005, SSGM Working Paper 2005/1,Political Discourse and Religious Narratives of Church and State in

Papua New Guinea

18
Gibbs, 2005 ibid
19 See, p 13-14, Denoon, D. 2005
20 The Lutheran Church is not in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville.

1
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Importance of service delivery

Since the missionary period, the provision of health and education services has been an important
part of churches relationships and reputations with their communities. Today the government
provides the great majority of the churches’ funding for these services and requires churches to meet
government policies and regulations. However, within a mixed church-state service provision system,
churches have built a reputation for better service delivery. In each of these sectors, government
funding arrangements and church delivery responsibilities differ, bringing different challenges for
churches engagement with the government, particularly at the national level.

Key issues include:

• Unreliability of government funding for church health services over the last 10 years,
compromising service delivery
• Government control over the employment of teachers, including those allocated to church
schools, compromising church’s ability to manage poor teachers and maintain quality services.
21

In adversely affecting church service delivery, these issues have the potential to damage churches
relationships and reputations with their communities.

While both sectors have established mechanisms for church-government engagement, they mainly
function to facilitate the flow of information and/or funding from the government down to the
churches and are otherwise focussed on the two issues above. The opportunity for churches to
contribute to better policy by bringing their grassroots implementation experience to the policy table
is not being maximised through these structures. To shift the way in which these engagement
mechanism’s function would likely require bringing along many stakeholders beyond those directly
involved in CPP.

The health sector has two key engagement bodies, the Catholic Church Health Service (CCHS) and the
Christian Health Service (CHS), consisting of 27 churches, including the other six CPP partners. The
education sector has a single engagement body, the National Churches Education Council (NCEC),
which represents 10 churches, including all seven CPP partners. While there are fewer stakeholders in
education, the NCEC arguably has less ability to coordinate churches compared with the CHS. The
latter acts as the government’s financial agent for church health services, receiving government
funding and disbursing to churches, but NCEC has no such role with government disbursing funds to
each individual church directly.

Church coordination and engagement with government

Churches recognised the importance of organising and coordinating with each other to engage the
PNG government more effectively. In the 1960s church membership, ‘peak bodies’ were set-up. The
PNG state recognises two such bodies which remain in operation today: the PNG Council of Churches
(PNGCC) and the Evangelical Alliance of PNG (PNGEA).

The ecumenical PNGCC has seven members, including six CPP partners—Anglican Church in PNG,
Baptist Union, Evangelical Lutheran Church of PNG, Roman Catholic Church in PNG, The Salvation
Army PNG, Uniting Church PNG22—and accounts for 58% of the Christian population (2011 census).
The PNGCC also seeks to coordinate with the other peak body, the PNGEA. The PNGEA consists of

21 Unlike the health sector, where church health workers are directly employed by the church service provider, in
education, the government employs all teachers including those working in church schools.
22 The Gutnius Lutheran Church of PNG is only member of PNGCC that is not a CPP partner

2
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

numerous, mainly small, evangelical churches, accounting for 6% of PNG’s Christians in the 2011
census. Their membership includes two CPP partners—Baptist and Salvation Army (they are in both
peak bodies).

Many mainly Pentecostal faiths did not join either body. There is a widespread perception that
Pentecostal faiths are rapidly growing in followers at the expense of other denominations but the
evidence for this is not clear.

The Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) Church, the remaining CPP Church partner, has also not formally
joined either peak body. However, they regularly participate in PNGCC meetings as an observer, and
often lend support to PNGCC’s advocacy and community education initiatives. The SDA Church’s
theological position on ecumenism prevents them from full membership of the PNGCC.

Summary
Despite different cultural, theological, and organisational histories, the seven CPP partners have
developed norms and processes for collaboration and shared learning over successive phases of the
Program. They have developed joint theologically based approaches to development (2014) and
gender equality (2015); and, in the current CPP Charter, re-affirmed their common purpose for
working together:
To achieve holistic, inclusive, and sustainable development, leading to Gutpela
Sindaun—increased prosperity and well-being for individuals and
communities. 23
However, the continuation of such a level of collaboration cannot be assumed—rather it must be
carefully nurtured and guarded through an understanding of the issues on which unity is possible and
those where interests are less common.

2.2 Churches policy engagement potential

Under the current CPP Charter, partners have agreed to ‘strengthen their engagement, and advocacy
with PNG government at all levels’. 24 The BCEP design recognizes churches’ significant potential to
contribute to PNG policy, given their influence and credibility with the PNG state and society and their
experience in delivering services, particularly to remote, rural communities. However, policy
engagement is a relatively new area for most CPP partners, in which they lack understanding, capacity
and confidence. Moreover, churches different cultural, theological, and organisational structures and
histories limit the potential issues for collective advocacy, particularly at the national level. 25

CPP partners’ different church structures and cultures shape how they can engage with government,
and the policy issues on which they can do so. A key issue is the degree to which partners’
development units—who lead churches work with CPP—are integrated into, and can coordinate with,
other units in their church structures. This integration varies significantly and is likely to affect the
ability of partners to engage on core church service delivery areas, such as health and education. 26
CPP partners will be better placed to engage on policy issues within the mandates of their
development units, such as community development/social services, disaster relief/humanitarian
response, gender equality (combatting violence against women and children) and the inclusion of
disadvantaged people, particularly those with disabilities.

23 P. 11. July, 2021, CPP Charter

24 P. 10 July 2021, Church Partnership Program Partnership Charter
25 Gibbs, 2005, ibid
26 Note, the ELCPNG is the only CPP partner not to situate their CPP office within the church’s development unit. To

maximize integration, in the current ELCPNG structure, the CPP office is situated in the Support Services Department while
development services (together with health services and education services) are in the Social Services Department.

3
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Local policy engagement and problem solving

CPP partners are well positioned to engage on policy issues at the local level. There are two main
opportunities for churches:

• to act as trusted intermediaries between communities and subnational governments

(provincial/district/local level) to solve local development problems and policies issues. Some
partners have relevant experience on which to draw. For example, under CPP, seven churches
came together in Simbu Province to work with government and support community leaders
in the Guna-Goreku tribe to address long-standing problems of tribal fighting, domestic
violence, and sorcery-accusation related violence. These leaders supported the community
to join a new entity, the Guna-Goreku Hauslain Association, and facilitated collective action
to address the source of these problems, unequal power relations between men and women.
Given their credibility and trust with the community, the churches were ideally placed to
facilitate and drew on tools developed under CPP, the Gender Equality Strategy, as a
theological basis to guide actions. 27
• to engage with communities to directly solve problems in relation to their own delivery of
services. While churches’ roles as agents of government service delivery may limit the interest
of some churches for such problem-solving, protecting and promoting their reputation for
good service delivery creates a stronger incentive to act. However, churches need to develop
the organisational culture and confidence to raise and address problems in a constructive
way.

One of the main challenges for such local problem solving is how to constructively align PNG’s
underlying, ‘informal’ cultural systems developed over centuries, with PNG’s ‘formal’ systems (e.g.
state structures). 28 However, various successful models have been developed and applied in PNG,
from which CPP partners can learn. These include social accountability tools applied by INGOs in PNG,
some of whom will be BCEP partners (under component 3), and the example of Oil Search
Foundation’s recent support to the Hela Health Clinic. The Oil Search Foundation developed a
framework for constructive engagement with the community and the state based on the following
three interlinked Tok Pisin concepts:

• Wokbung: working in partnership/union. Unions are endorsed/legitimised through kastom

wok, that is customary practices or ceremonies.
• Luksave: the act of acknowledging, listening, perhaps repaying a favour and, always paying
due respect to someone or some group
• Hanmak: the degree to which you are accepted into a group based on having delivered
something tangible (that is, left a mark).

The application of this framework is illustrated in box 2.

Box 2: Case Study: Oil Search Foundation’s culturally respectful partnership approach with Hela Health Clinic
Faced with losing their health service provider (Médecins San Frontières) and with few prospects of finding a
replacement, the government approached Oil Search Foundation (OSF). The OSF agreed to provide support,
entering a partnership with government and the community to deliver health services to the Hela Clinic. The
partnership was formally launched at a ceremony in Hela attended by GoPNG Secretaries and community
leaders as well as the Oil Search CEO. The presence at the event of such senior leaders, especially the CEO—who

27 Governance Partnership, 2019, Guna – Goreku Stretim Hauslain Association Enabling change from within: A case study of
local solutions for social change
28 This section is based on Martin Brash’s analysis developed for the Oil Search Foundation for how to build effective

partnerships by addressing the dynamics of PNG’s socio-cultural context.

4
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

was described by the community as ‘… bringing himself to the eyes of the Hela people…’—represents an
appropriate act of luksave. The preparation for, and way the event was conducted—involving pledges of
support, agreement signings and official openings –was a case of gutpela luksave na gutpela kastom wok long
strongim wokbung.

From the launch, OSF established a long term set of reciprocal obligations and expectations with its partners.
This required OSF to live up to it commitments but also meant they could call on government and other partners
to make inputs when required to drive the hospital agenda forward. In this regard, the formal system and the
cultural system were aligned; relationships are key in both systems and involve negotiating obligations and
making sure partners are happy are common in both. Through its track record in providing the resources for
Hela, the OSF partnership has successfully built community support for the hospital and strengthened the
respect levels that the community have for the partners. This is a clear demonstration of hanmak.

National policy engagement and problem solving

Church partners’ engagement on policy issues at the national level is more challenging, particularly on
service delivery issues. Given current tensions between church and government over health and
education service delivery (see 2.1), some CPP partners may perceive a risk of adding further pressure
to their relationship current relationship with government. A focus on national government policy
questions could also distract from where problems could be solved by more effective community-
church engagement at the local level. Lastly, churches’ role as government service providers could
compromise churches’ credibility to act as trusted intermediaries between government and
community.

Despite these challenges, the context of PNG church-state relations presents at least three inter-linked
avenues for pursuing national-level policy engagement:

1. PNGCC: collective and policy engagement by CPP partners quietly through the PNGCC reduces
many of the risks from partners engaging individually. Several partners indicated this was their
preferred approach for national policy engagement. This is precisely the role for which PNGCC
was set up by the mainline churches in the 1960s. The PNGCC was inactive for many years but
has been revived under its current leadership. In the last phase, CPP, along with other donors
such as Bread for the World, began developing the organisation's very limited capacity. The
PNGCC will continue to work with the Seventh Day Adventist Church (the only mainline church
that is not a formal member of the body) on policy issues where all mainline Churches share
concerns. The PNGCC’s recent role in tackling COVID-19 misinformation highlights the
proactive public policy role the body can play, working in concert with government.

2. Evidence generation: individual or collective church engagement with government based on

evidence for the:
• government scale-up of partners’ local development activities proven to be
effective.
• development and/or revision of government policy based on partners’ frontline
service delivery experience.

The first opportunity builds on and seeks to maximize the impact and sustainability of CPP
partners’ existing work. The second opportunity will build on collective learning about service
delivery problems generated through CPP partners’ experience.

3. Multi-stakeholder coalitions for change: Individual or collective CPP partner participation in

broad coalitions for influencing change on selected government policies. This is potentially the
most complex of the three policy engagement approaches as multiple stakeholders need to

5
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

agree on an issue and advocacy approach. However, churches already have experience of
working in coalitions to build on. For example, in their participation in the ‘Community Against
Corruption Coalition’ (CACC) working alongside civil society (Transparency International), the
private sector and media; and in the current coalition of ten church denominations supporting
the government’s action plan to address sorcery-related violence.

3. Lessons learned
This section summarises relevant key learning from past phases and the implications for improving
CPP’s performance in the next phase. This section covers the effectiveness of partner programs for
achieving inclusive development; opportunities and learning for partners to increase their
engagement on policy issues and adopt social accountability approaches; learning from GEDSI work;
and lessons on how to better strengthen PNG church partners’ organisational capacity for localisation
and sustainability.

3.1 Development effectiveness

The mid-term review of the current phase (2019) found that CPP’s effectiveness was being hindered
by the lack of a clear program logic showing how partners’ individual and collective work would come
together to achieve overall program-level outcomes, so that the ‘whole is greater than the sum of its
parts.’ While the CPP Charter articulates a very high-level vision for the program, neither this or other
documents (for example, the design document) provided a clear and realistic strategic framing.
Without this framing:

• much of the focus in the current phase has been at the input and activity level—reinforced
by an annual activity planning and reporting process where only loose links were made to
very general outcomes at the program level as defined in the CDD.
• while promoting partner collaboration was an important part of CPP, the Program’s focus
was on specific development programs with their local communities. This was also the main
channel through which CPP’s shared approaches were implemented.
• establishing functioning MEL systems at program and partner levels has been difficult
(without clearly defined outcomes and a program logic against which to measure progress).
• governance and management bodies have tended to focus on the administration and
operation of the program rather than its strategic direction.

The learning for the next phase is to create a sharper and more realistic strategic framing for the
program while still providing partners with space to respond to the urgent needs of their local
communities and leaders. This can be achieved by:

• CPP program logic: developing a CPP strategic framing or program logic where each partner
can see where their own individual work fits. The program logic in section 5 was developed
through a series of zoom workshops with partners. One workshop showed that most partners
have overlapping priorities in terms of thematic/sectoral areas.
• CPP partner plans: supporting partners to take a more outcomes-oriented focus that supports
their organisational sustainability by linking funding to three-year CPP partner plans with
clearly defined high-level results related to the CPP program logic. These plans could be based
on partner’s work in thematic/sectoral areas where they have a comparative advantage. Many
partners already have organisational strategies that could be used for this purpose, although
CPP would only fund the components of those strategies that align with the program logic.
Other partners will need assistance to write their own program plans in the Inception period.

6
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

• Behaviour change: for many partners, an increased focus on outcomes means a greater focus
on educating the community and influencing their behaviours and attitudes. For example, this
could be behaviours related to COVID-19, WASH or adult literacy (aligned to partners’
thematic focus areas), and attitudes and behaviours related to gender equality and people
with disabilities. In the next phase, CPP partners will have the opportunity to work with BCEP’s
media partners to learn how the media can be engaged to increase their behaviour change
objectives.
• MEL: developing separate but linked MEL frameworks at program and partner level so that
results at one level can be easily filtered and aggregated to the next level. The MEL framework
should provide the basis for partner-level and program-level reporting. The CPP Coordination
Office (CPPCO) needs to be resourced with significant in-house expertise to build partners
MEL capacity.
• Learning: could be made more strategic strengthened by integrating learning objectives into
the program logic and based on emerging partner thematic priorities, as well as GEDSI, MEL,
financial management and social accountability.

In the next phase, there is an opportunity to increase impact by building on CPP’s foundations for
coordination while leveraging the potential of partners’ community engagement and development
activities to be used for the generation of evidence for policy influencing.

3.2 Policy engagement and social accountability

While the CPP design document for the current phase recognised church partners significant potential
to contribute to PNG policy, the Program did not actively support partners to do so, and little policy
engagement took place. To increase engagement on policy issues in the next phase, CPP partners will
require significant capacity development support tailored to their specific organisational needs. CPP
partners should also have flexibility to engage on policy issues as appropriate to their organisational
confidence and comfort. Some CPP partners have very limited policy engagement experience and have
not seen this as part of their role in the past.

Given CPP’s limited experience supporting policy engagement, this CDD draws lessons from
international experience, as documented in the BCEP Design Document (section C) for how to support
policy engagement in the next phase. The CPP design takes a broad definition of policy engagement
and influencing as both:

• efforts to change government legislation, standards, and the design and implementation of
policy, using evidence, as well as
• local actions, like the community working together with government or other public
authorities (for example, churches) to solve local problems.

CPP can support partners to influence both types of policy engagement. However, international
evidence from similar contexts to PNG shows that focusing on local problem-solving to begin with can
build the capacity and confidence for engaging in the development of national laws and policies later.
The key learning for engaging at these different levels relevant to CPP is summarised below.

Social accountability processes: local problem solving

Social accountability processes can be effective in solving local problems, such as basic service
delivery when they promote collaboration between the community and public authorities. Though
often defined as ‘informed citizens holding governments to account for delivery of public services’, in
practice, constructive, non-confrontational engagement focussed on problem-solving has been shown
to be the most effective approach to social accountability and is the approach proposed for adoption

7
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

by CPP partners in PNG. The concept is that when citizens engage with service providers, for example
through participating in planning local services, their views are more likely to be heard and to influence
government actions leading to better quality services. 29 While relatively few social accountability
projects have been implemented in PNG, BCEP includes the main INGOs that have current, successful
experience (under component 3).

Effective social accountability initiatives require skilled and trusted intermediaries to broker
constructive engagement with communities and government. As outlined in section 2.2, churches are
trusted by communities but need to develop social accountability skills to effectively broker
constructive engagement, whether to solve problems with government or their own church delivery
of services.

CPP partners’ work with the faith-based INGO Tearfund at the end of the current phase, offers a way
to develop these social accountability skills. Tearfund is internationally recognised for their work in
helping churches adapt and adopt social accountability approaches. Their approach starts with a focus
on internal organisational change. Tearfund builds churches’ understanding of concepts such as social
accountability and policy engagement, to embed these within each church’s unique organisational
culture. To achieve this, churches develop their own scriptural/theological understanding of the place
of accountability in their church mission. They also identify appropriate terms for explaining concepts
like ‘accountability’, ‘civic engagement’ and ‘advocacy’ in local languages and the terminology of their
church.

National policy engagement

Partners will require ongoing support over the long-term to develop confidence to engage at the
national level to influence policy. However, the three opportunities for promoting policy engagement
identified in section 2.2 can be leveraged as follows:

1. PNGCC: CPP could develop PNGCC’s organisational capacity to develop and implement a
strategic plan to meet is members priorities (see section 3.4). At the same time, the PNGCC
could be supported to become an effective platform for church partners to collaborate and
learn about social accountability and how evidence generated at this level could be applied to
national issues.
2. Evidence generation: PNGCC and Partners will require support to generate and analyse
evidence, develop policy influencing strategies, and design future activities with a view to
evaluating their potential for scaling up and/or informing policy (through both government
and church structures). CPP could engage PNG policy think-tanks, including the Melanesian
Research Institute to conduct research and analysis.
3. Multi-stakeholder coalitions for change: while there may be few issues on which all seven
partners would like to advocate for change, the BCEP Program (under component 1) can
facilitate selected CPP partners to participate in coalitions with diverse organizations from the
private sector, civil society and the media.
3.3 Gender, disability, and social inclusion
Since inception, CPP has demonstrated increasing commitment to gender, disability and social
inclusion (GEDSI). In the Phase 3 design, GEDSI was both mainstreamed and included at the outcome

29
From ITAD, ‘What works for Social Accountability?’, Findings from DFID’s Macro Evaluation, Policy Briefing, June 2017.
Critics of social accountability however point to an ‘accountability trap’ in which the contribution to improved services
remains localised and short-lived if social accountability initiatives are not part of a more strategic intervention in policy
making

8
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

and goal level, which raised the profile of GEDSI within the program. The following is a summary of
GEDSI achievements in CPP3: 30
• The launch of the Gender Equality Theology (GET), endorsed by all partners
• Four churches (SDA, Baptist Union PNG, UCPNG and the Catholic Church) have used GET within
their theological colleges or church leader training
• Increased work and focus on gender-based violence (GBV) with the development of new safe
houses (Catholic Church, SDA and UPNG); emerging referral pathways; GBV response in health
(UCPNG); GBV and protection in Disaster Risk Response (Catholic)
• Gender equality and male advocate training at the community level (Anglican and Catholic)
• GEDSI audit (SDA)
• Gender mainstreaming in adult literacy (Anglican Church)
• Focal points in gender (UCPNG) and disability inclusion (Lutheran)
• Uniting Church focus on increasing women’s leadership
• Formalisation of the gender working group including all CPP partners
• Improvements in sex-disaggregated data collection (all partners)

The mid-term review indicated that the GET could be the basis of community mobilisation to improve
gender equality, address GBV prevention and challenge gender norms. The GET is aligned to good
GEDSI practice as it promotes gender equality and social inclusion, and a rights-based approach. It
utilises the language of faith-based organisations to promote gender equality and social and disability
inclusion. It also has an empowerment focus for women and people with disabilities and an
understanding that gender roles and norms can change. As the GET refers to people with disabilities
as ‘deemed unclean’ (conveying a cultural attitude observed in biblical times) CPP will attempt to
sensitively counter this narrative so as not to reinforce stigmatisation of people with disabilities. The
GET as it stands has not been adapted to community gender equality programs and lacks materials for
delivery or monitoring.
Several partners also provided gender equality training and mainstreaming of GEDSI throughout their
activities. Within the MEL Framework, GEDSI was integrated into indicators, key evaluation questions,
and improvements in the collection of sex-disaggregated data. However, there were gaps in the MEL
system and indicators focused mainly on numbers of training participants, with no measurement of
what is learned at community level gender training. It also lacked a measure of changes in attitudes
of new church leaders resulting from GET training, in other words outcomes. Disability inclusion was
also identified by CPP partners as an area to improve.
The learning for the next phase is to implement a twin-track approach where partners focus on GEDSI
specific activities and improvd GEDSI mainstreaming, aligned to DFAT gender and disability
strategies.31 Priorities identified by partners for GEDSI-focused priorities include: GBV and sorcery
accusation related violence (SARV), and inclusion of women and people with disabilities in community
decision-making processes. This approach requires a fit-for-purpose MEL system that measures
changes in knowledge and attitudes and collects sex and disability disaggregated data. The
implications for the next phase are to provide additional resources, including specialist gender/GBV
and MEL expertise to support partners to monitor these outcomes along with specific disability
inclusion support.
To assist data collection and reporting, GEDSI could be improved in CPP4 through the development of
a program wide GEDSI action plan (Draft GEDSI Action Plan in Annex 3) and linked partner GEDSI action
plans, which detail partners plans for both mainstreaming and GEDSI specific activities.
Implementation of these plans should be monitored on an annual basis.

30 There are many other achievements at the project level. This list is a summary of high-level achievements.
31 DFAT Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy (2016-2020) and D

9
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

3.4 Partner organisational capacity development

Empowering and enhancing PNG church leadership is core to CPP’s localisation agenda, as defined in
the CPP Charter. A specific aspect of localisation concerns transferring responsibilities to manage grant
agreements from ANGO to PNG churches. Under the phase 3 design, CPP was expected to make
significant progress toward localisation through targeted partner organisational capacity
development, resulting in grants primarily managed by PNG Church partners, rather than ANGOs.
However, progress over phase 3 has been slow and no PNG partners will have moved to lead grant
agreements by the end of this phase.
The recommendation from the Mid-term Review is that:
‘CPP should transition to a model whereby Abt PNG channels funds directly to those
PNG partners who desire a change should be set in motion on an opt-in basis,
considering the aspects outlined in the review. A structured three-year transition plan
should be agreed, based on thorough organisational capacity assessments and risk
assessments and incorporating measures to strengthen alternative partnership
modalities between PNG Church and ANGO partners.’ 32
Lessons from phase 3 33 include:
• PNG church partners require more responsive, targeted, and hands-on, in-country capacity
development support focussed on the organisation rather than individuals. Common areas of
organisational weakness are in GEDSI, MEL and strategic financial management
• Need for clarity on responsibility for providing capacity development support in a single central
entity. In the last phase, responsibility was unclear as it was spread across the CPPCO, the
Governance Partnership (Abt) Management Office and ANGO partners.
• Each partner should be able to pursue localisation objectives on an ‘opt-in basis.’ Some CPP
partners need assistance to determine their readiness to move toward localisation, and others
have complex organisational governance structures that do not easily facilitate localisation.
ANGOS will still have an important role in capacity development, but this role will be different
for each ANGO/CPP partner.
• Organisational assessment should be undertaken jointly with each CPP partner at the start to
determine the capacity development support to be provided and provide a baseline against
which progress can be assess on a regular basis.
• Continue thematic working groups as part of the organisational development approach. For
example, the Finance Working Group, which has applied a train-the-trainer approach, has been
effective.

In addition to the PNG Church partners, the CPP provides organisational capacity support to the
PNGCC. In the last phase, CPP, along with other donors such as Bread for the World, began providing
some support to develop the organisation’s very limited capacity. CPP supported the PNGCC to
coordinate the COVID-19 public education campaign. In the next phase, CPP has an opportunity help
the PNGCC develop sustainable organisational capacity to better deliver on its mandate and facilitate
collective church voice and action. The CPPCO could provide support PNGCC to develop a strategic
plan that represents the priorities of its members as well as provide strengthening to internal
governance, financial and management organisational processes. The CPP should support PNGCC to
present the strategic plan for approval according to the governance processes in its constitution.
Further details of the role of PNGCC are included in Section 6.3.

32PNG QTAG, Church Partnership Program Mid-term Review, 29.

33These lessons are drawn from the CPP-3 Mid-Tern Review, Abt Associate’s: Targeted Study: Localisation within the
Church Partnership Program (2021), and design team discussions with stakeholders.

10
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

4. Expected outcomes
4.1 Program logic
The CPP program logic is represented in the diagram below and explained in the following section.

11
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Figure 1: CPP Program Logic

12
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

4.2 Explanation of logic

CPP’s goal and end of program outcomes: alignment with BCEP
The diagram above shows that the CPP program logic integrates into the BCEP program logic through
alignment of goal and end of program outcomes. The CPP’s end of program outcomes will be delivered
through four implementation pillars that will also contribute to BCEP’s end of program outcomes.

The long-term BCEP goal is: “to strengthen citizen-government engagement for improved service
delivery and provision of public goods.” BCEP’s central governance issue is the weak interaction
between state and non-state actors in the design and implementation of policy. By tackling issues
where more and less powerful actors have interests in common, such as practical improvements to
how essential services are provided, BCEP aims to directly impact people’s lives. Doing so will
demonstrate how constructive citizen-government interaction can change how PNG is governed.

The long-term CPP goal is: “to improve delivery of public services and goods to vulnerable and
marginalised communities.” CPP is also focussed on the same broad issue of strengthening the
interaction between public authorities for improving the delivery of public services. However, CPP has
expanded the focus beyond state actors to the broader category of “public authorities”, which
includes state as well as church authorities. Moreover, CPP has a particular focus on making sure
services are reaching vulnerable and marginalised communities, with a specific focus on women,
people accused of sorcery, people living with disabilities, and people in rural and remote communities.

The CPP goal is achieved through two end of program outcomes like BCEP’s end of program outcomes.

CPP contributes to BCEP end outcome 1: “selected state and non-state actors collaborate effectively
to tackle targeted development problems” through the CPP end outcome 1 “government and church
community members constructively engage to deliver inclusive development outcomes.” Two CPP
pillars will directly contribute to this end outcome:

• Pillar 1: focusses on the provision of information to the community on development

problems and issues; and the generation of evidence from church activities on how to
improve development policies and engage with government through the PNGCC and/or
broader coalitions.
• Pillar 2: supports PNG church partner facilitated social accountability initiatives that
promote constructive community engagement with public authorities (government and
church).

CPP contributes to BCEP end outcome 2: “targeted PNG decision-makers explicitly integrate gender
equality and inclusive social norms into efforts to tackle targeted development problems” through
CPP end outcome 2: “government and church decision-makers actively promote gender equality,
disability, and social inclusion.” CPP pillar 3 will directly contribute to this end outcome:

• Pillar 3: aims to influence changes in the attitudes of church leaders and the community
toward GEDSI as well as change internal church policies and procedure toward GEDSI.
Both efforts will be based on supporting the operationalisation of the gender equality
theology as well mainstreaming of GEDSI through all activities.

CPP’s pillar 4 will maximise change on both CPP end outcome through processes to support
collaboration, learning and join actions among CPP and BCEP partners. Pillar 4 also supports long-term
sustainability through processes to develop CPP partners organisational development for localisation.

13
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Finally, where possible, CPP outcome indicators have been harmonized with BCEP indicators to
support aggregation and learning across BCEP partners (see Annex 1).

CPP’s intermediate outcomes and outputs

The four implementation pillars will work together to achieve CPP’s end of program outcomes (see
box). Each pillar has intermediate outcomes and outputs which presented below.
Box 3: How the four CPP pillars work together
1. Information Access and Evidence Generation Pillar: involves CPP partners leveraging their current activities
to ensure that a) communities have access to the information they need for constructive engagement with
government and/or problem solving and b) evidence is generated from these activities to inform CPP
partners dialogue with public authorities (government and church) leading to the making of better policies
that achieve more inclusive development outcome.
2. Social Accountability Pillar: involves developing CPP partners capacity to implement social accountability
initiatives. The focus is on building the capacity of CPP partners to use social accountability approaches to
facilitate constructive engagement between the community and public authorities (government and
church). This is expected to lead to the solving of practical development problems, including in the delivery
of basic services. Successful social accountability interventions rely on the work under pillar 1. Namely, the
community requires access to information on the problem and their rights, and the government needs
policy solutions based on evidence.
3. Gender Equality Theology and GEDSI Pillar is focussed on changing negative gender and social attitudes
that are commonly held in PNG towards women, people with disability and other socially excluded groups.
The focus is on influencing change within church organisations by focussing on the attitudes of church
leaders and ensuring church policies are inclusive; as well as seeking to directly influence the attitudes of
community members. This pillar continues, with increased ambition, the significant work CPP partners have
done in past phases to provide services to women and other vulnerable groups. Work in this pillar will
leverage the CPP Gender Equality Theology. This pillar will also help to ensure that social accountability
initiatives (pillar 2) as well as information access and evidence activities (pillar 1) are inclusive of women
and other vulnerable groups.
4. Partner Development and Collaboration Pillar will underpin the work across all three pillars above. The first
part of this pillar is focussed on building PNG church partners’ organisational capacity and resilience, with
the flexibility to pursue localisation on an ‘opt-in’ basis. The ambition is that PNG church partners have the
necessary skills to continue to thrive when the Program finishes. There is particular focus on building
capacity in common areas of weakness in GEDSI, MEL and financial management, but support will be
tailored to the needs of each PNG church partner. The CPP capacity development process will support CPP
partners to assess needs, define capacity support and plan and measure gains made.
The second part of this pillar is focussed on facilitating collaboration and learning between CPP partners to
maximise their collective impact. To facilitate collaboration, CPP will build on the norms and processes
developed in previous phases. These include the thematic working groups on agreed topics. This pillar will
also facilitate collaboration for learning and joint action with other BCEP partners.

Pillar 1: Policy evidence and information access

Pillar 1 is based around CPP partners current CPP development activities (under Partner Annual work
Plans, PAPs) but seeks to increase the effectiveness of these activities and maximise opportunities for
taking this work to scale through incorporation in broader government or church policies.
Effectiveness will be increased by creating a) strategic three-year plan under which these activities will
be delivered to achieve outcomes in agreed thematic priorities (see section 4.3) and b) fit-for-purpose
MEL frameworks to measure progress and capture learning and knowledge as evidence for policy
influencing (see section 4.3). There are three interrelated intermediate outcomes under this pillar.

14
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Pillar 1 Intermediate Outcomes:

1.1 CPP partners deliver services/activities in thematic priority areas with improved monitoring &
evaluation for generating policy evidence

1.2 CPP partners constructively engage with government in policy processes, individually and
collectively (through the PNGCC and/or coalitions), utilizing evidence as appropriate

1.3 Church community members demonstrate increased awareness on selected public issues.

These intermediate outcomes are designed to drive a significant change in how CPP partners have
approached their development activities compared with the past. Most of these activities have
involved the delivery of services to beneficiaries and/or the provision of information on key public
issues, such COVID-19 vaccination or how to vote in national elections. The first two intermediate
outcomes (1.1 and 1.2) relate to the former type of activities and the third intermediate outcome (1.3)
to the latter.

In relation to service delivery activities, this Pillar aims to encourage partners to develop and
implement activities with the potential to be scaled-up for increased impact. This aim is new for many
partners and has implications for how activities are designed (with pathways for potential scaling up)
and measured (to collect evidence for scaling up) (1.1). The main pathway for scaling up is expected
to involve learning from successful pilot/trials informing government policy, although another
effective pathway is that CPP partner activities inform their own churches policies. Gender, disability
and social inclusion should be mainstreamed through all activities.

The second intermediate outcome involves partners analysing the evidence from pilot activities and
developing strategies to constructively engage with relevant government or church authorities, at
national or local level, to advocate for policy change based on the evidence. CPP partners could
undertake this engagement individual or join with like-minded church partners and work through the
PNGCC or join with like-minded other BCEP partners and work through a BCEP coalition for change.
CPP partners recent work in developing adult literacy programs is an example of a current activity that
could be well suited to scaling up through adoption in government policy.

Both these intermediate outcomes assume that CPP partners’ capacity can be built in the design and
monitoring of pilot activities, the generation and analysis of policy evidence, and government policy
engagement. Although, CPP could also engage qualified third-party organisations, such as the
Melanesian Institute to conduct policy research and analysis for CPP partners. The focus of policy
engagement should ensure that policies promote gender equality, disability and social inclusion, in
collaboration with disabled people’s organisations and women’s organisations.

Pillar 1 also seeks to strengthen the vital role CPP partners play in providing information on important
public issues related to their development activities. Intermediate outcome 1.3 seeks to increase the
effectiveness of CPP partner’s public information campaigns, by ensuring that there are measures in
place for measuring if community awareness has increased. In addition, under BCEP component 2,
CPP partners will be able to access technical advice from media experts (from MDI) on how they can
improve the effectiveness of their public education campaigns, including by using different media
channels (e.g. Digital) to maximise reach.

Indicative outputs under this pillar are:

15
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Pillar 1: Indicative Outputs

CPP partners design & implement:
• (pilot) activities in thematic priority areas, with processes for M&E and evidence collection
• community information, education and communication activities on selected issues related to
thematic priority areas
CPP partners (individually/collectively):
• analyse evidence and the policy implications and/or engage third parties to conduct analysis (e.g.
Melanesian Institute)
• develop ‘influencing plans’ for engaging in policy processes, including through the PNGCC (where
relevant)

Pillar 2: Social accountability

Pillar 2 strongly links to BCEP and builds on the work that CPP partners commenced at the end of
phase 3 on how to build each church’s capacity in social accountability. The BCEP design advocates an
approach to social accountability based on building constructive engagement between communities
and public authority figures (whether in church or government) to solve practical local development
problems. Through the delivery of social accountability projects, BCEP partners (including CPP
partners), can contribute to the achievement of BCEP’s end outcome 1: “selected State & Non-State
actors collaborate effectively to tackle targeted development problems.”
Work with Tearfund at the end of phase three helped to increase CPP partners’ appreciation of the
potential for applying “faith-based social accountability approaches” to achieve practical development
outcomes. The intended “end” of social accountability approaches is essential services that better
meet community needs and/or other development problems solved. The “means” for achieving this
end is constructive interaction between communities and public authorities. Constructive interaction
can be defined as communities having confidence and trust to raise their needs/problems with public
authorities and public authorities having confidence and trust to discuss with communities how they
can work together to address those needs/problems. The key to the success of social accountability is
the presence of trusted intermediaries to broker interactions through a tailored process that is
inclusive of vulnerable and marginalised groups.
CPP partners are well-placed to act as trusted intermediaries because of churches long established
relationships and credibility with local communities and government, and their knowledge of front-
line service delivery challenges. However, they require coaching and training in how to apply social
accountability approaches to their specific organisational and operational contexts. The intermediate
outcomes under this pillar are based on Tearfund’s work with partners at end of phase three. The
three intermediate outcomes are:

Intermediate Outcomes:

2.1 CPP partners develop their own church social accountability approaches

2.2 CPP partners facilitate community members to constructively engage with government and/or
church authorities in church accountability pilot projects

2.3 PNGCC facilitates the generation and sharing of CPP partner’s learning and evidence on social
accountability

Sustainably building capacity in social accountability starts with ensuring that each CPP partner’s wider
church organisation understands and supports the concept. This requires explaining social

16
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

accountability in terms that PNG churches and communities understand and defining the theological
basis for the concept. Close engagement with church leaders throughout this process is key.

International experience shows that explaining social accountability in local languages can be a
challenge, as there is often no equivalent to the English word ‘accountability’. This situation applies in
PNG. In Tok Pisin, for example, there is no word for accountability or related concepts such as
‘advocacy’. To help churches understand how social accountability relates to Christian theology
requires the study of relevant Christian scriptures. Faith-based organisations like Tearfund have
experience in guiding churches through such studies.

Each CPP partner needs to be supported to take their wider church through this foundational work,
at a pace that is appropriate for their organisation. Intermediate outcome 2.1 is the culmination of
this foundational work: each CPP partner has adapted and adopted their own social accountability
approaches.

Once CPP partners have developed their own social accountability approaches, the next step is to pilot
them. In implementing pilots, intermediate outcome 2.2 places the emphasize on constructive
community engagement with public authorities, as this directly relates to CPP partners’ roles as
trusted intermediaries. The result of this constructive interaction (problems addressed/services
improved) is captured at the next level in the program logic (the CPP and BCEP end outcome levels).

Lastly, intermediate outcome 2.3 promotes cooperation between CPP partners on social
accountability by building the capacity of the PNGCC to act as hub for the generation and sharing of
learning and evidence on social accountability. While the PNGCC will be primarily focussed on CPP
partners, they will also promote collaboration and learning with other BCEP partners under BCEP’s
social accountability component.

Achievement of intermediate outcome 2.3 will mean that the PNGCC has been strengthened to
perform its core constitutional functions of promoting cooperation between churches and liaison with
government authorities. The PNGCC will also have access to a rich body of local evidence for analysis
and use in national policy advocacy. As the peak body for mainline churches, establishing the PNGCC
as a knowledge and learning hub for faith-based social accountability contributes to the sustainability
of CPP’s efforts promote this approach and increase churches capacity.

To deliver these intermediate outcomes, indicative outputs, taken from the Tear Fund proposal (see
Annex 6) are listed below:

Pillar 2: Indicative Outputs

CPP partners:
• develop GEDSI-sensitive Social Accountability approaches and action plans, based on a
scriptural understanding of social accountability
• obtain leaders buy-in and agreement to Action Plans
• Pilot Social Accountability approaches
• Monitor and collect evidence from pilots
• Share evidence and learning in PNGCC forums and contribute to generation of CPP Social
Accountability Theology

17
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Pillar 3: Gender Equality Theology and GEDSI

Pillar 3 builds on the commitment of CPP partners to promoting gender equality and social inclusion
and the implementation of the Gender Equality Theology, and commitment to issues such as the
prevention of GBV and SARV. This pillar is closely aligned to the BCEP outcome of targeting PNG
decision-makers explicitly integrating gender equality and inclusive social norms into efforts to tackle
targeted development problems. CPP will focus on the measurement of attitude change as an
indicator of norm change.
Pillar 3 Intermediate outcomes

3.1 Selected Church leaders demonstrate gender equal and socially inclusive attitudes

3.2 Selected Church policies are revised to align with the GET and GEDSI

3.3 Community members demonstrate gender and socially inclusive attitudes

Churches are highly respected in the community and a key source of information for communities on
various public issues. The critical assumption underpinning this pillar is that church leaders can be
effective role models in their communities and demonstrate gender equal and socially inclusive
attitudes if they understand and apply the CPP Gender Equality Theology34 in their work. For example,
CPP partners could focus on measuring attitude changes among the young and emerging leaders
currently being trained on GET at Theological Colleges. This could also include community church
leaders such as the leaders of women’s church groups. Under this pillar, CPP partners will continue to
be supported to promote GET as the basis for training church leaders and community members on
GEDSI. Each partner will define their focus.

Efforts to change church attitudes toward GEDSI could be undermined by internal organisational
policies and practices that limit opportunities for women, people with disabilities and other excluded
groups to participate in church activities. To promote GEDSI within their organisations, CPP partners
will identify current key church policies that could be amended to promote positive GEDSI attitudes in
line with GET.. These policies could relate to women’s leadership, disability inclusion, referral
pathways that include Churches, CPP partner policies, development arm policies, and health and
education policies as examples. Each partner will define which policies they will focus on.

At the community level, PNG Church partners will develop community information and education
materials in line with GET to influence community attitudes concerning GEDSI. GEDSI will also be
mainstreamed through thematic priorities (health, education, GBV/SARV, community resilience and
peacebuilding) and programmatic priorities such as social accountability and partner development
and collaboration. CPP partners should also engage with women’s organisations and disabled peoples’
organisations to support delivery of community GEDSI activities.

Robust MEL processes will support these activities to monitor how attitudes change (or not). The
GEDSI focus of each program will be documented by each CPP partner in a GEDSI action plan which
will be monitored on a six-monthly basis.

BCEP’s media partners will support church partners in developing media engagement strategies that
enable them to engage multiple forms of media (print, radio, digital) more effectively to maximize
audience reach and influence.

Pillar 3: Indicative Outputs

34
And/or the individual PNG Church partner’s policy that is equivalent CPP’s GET

18
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

CPP partners develop and implement GEDSI action plans that include
• Designing and implementing activities to raise Church leaders awareness of GET
• Conduct a stocktake of Church policies and identity how to revise in line with GET and GESDI norms
• Develop GEDSI community awareness activities in partnership with women’s organisations (such
as NCW) and disabled peoples organisations
• Mainstreaming GEDSI into all activities
CCPCO supports
• GEDSI action planning for each partner
• GEDSI MEL to measure attitude change
• GEDSI Working group

Pillar 4: Partner development and collaboration

Pillar 4 will underpin work across all three pillars above to maximise the collective impact on both
EOPOs. The first part of this pillar is focussed on building PNG church partners organisational capacity
and resilience necessary for promoting the sustainability and localisation of CPP’s work (intermediate
outcome 4.1). The purpose of the second part of this pillar is to promote collaboration, learning and
joint actions between CPP partners (intermediate outcome 4.2).

Pillar 4 intermediate outcomes:

4.1 PNG Church partners have increased organizational capacity for localisation

4.2 CPP partners collaborate for learning and developing common positions on selected issues

4.3 CPP partners contribute to BCEP learning and participate in selected joint actions

Organisational development and localisation

Localisation of PNG Church partners will continue to be promoted through organizational

development support. Each partner will define its tailored approach to organizational capacity
development in a capacity development plan. The capacity development plans will articulate
capacity development responsibilities for ANGOs, the CPPCO and other groups, such as Tearfund or
specialist GEDSI organizations (such as women’s organisations and DPOs), recognizing the unique
governance structures and readiness for localisation of each CPP partner. Each ANGO will have
different specific roles, based on their own and their PNG partners different organisational
strengths. The specific roles will be defined with PNG church partners in the Inception Period and
included in partner budgets.

As CPP partners move towards localisation, a financial management capacity assessment of each of
these groups and the whole organization should be conducted. This involves developing an
understanding that sound financial management is not restricted to direct management of the grant
process but involves strategic financial planning, an understanding of risk management, due
diligence and fraud control and needs to be integrated throughout the partner organization. All
groups (board, management, program, finance) need to be part of a mutually beneficial change
process that would be outlined in the capacity development plans.

Partner collaboration and learning

This work area is closely related to BCEP, and BCEP and CPP partners will benefit from joint learning
and collaboration on complex development issues such as improving service delivery to marginalized

19
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

communities, changing attitudes regarding GEDSI, preventing gender-based violence and promoting
the localisation of PNG partners. These complex issues benefit from learning from the experience of
the diverse groups represented in CPP, women’s organisations and DPOs, and documenting learning.
This learning will contribute to the evidence base to inform policy development and implementation
within Church and Government. These processes are supported through structured learning processes
such as thematic working groups within CPP and close collaboration with BCEP learning forums and
processes. These are further detailed in sections 4.2 and 6.

Pillar 4 Indicative Outputs:

CPPCO
• Assesses partner's organisational capacity, develops and provides support.
• With partners, develops a structured CPP learning approach, including identifying thematic
learning topics.
• Facilitates CPP learning and develops and disseminates learning products.
• With BCEP, facilitates CPP partners participation in BCEP learning forums.
CPP partners
• Articulate role of ANGOs in the capacity development plans in the inception phase
• Implement capacity development plans
• Share learning on improving services & challenging GEDSI attitudes
• Share approaches on joint issues such as PSEAH, child protection and localisation

4.3 Delivery approach

The fourth phase of CPP is designed to achieve end of program outcomes at the end of 7.5 years of
implementation. This phase will be delivered over following two stages:

• CPP 4.1 – from July 2022 to December 2025

• CPP 4.2 – from January 2026 to December 2029

Continuation from the first stage (CPP 4.1) to the second (CPP 4.2) will be subject to adequate progress
against end of program outcomes, as assessed by an independent review. At the start of CPP 4.1, the
full fourth phase will be set up in a six-month Inception Period (from July to December 2022).

DFAT has selected a Managing Contractor (MC) to manage the delivery of CPP as an integrated
component of BCEP. 35 The MC will perform these functions through a BCEP Program Management
Team (PMT), and a CPP Coordination Office (CPPCO) (management arrangements are outlined in
section 5).

The MC will develop the delivery approach in the Inception Period. The delivery approach needs to
coordinate and link CPP delivery across three levels, as illustrated in the figure below:

35
The MC was selected through an open procurement with responsibility for managing the overall BCEP
program, including CPP.

20
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Figure 2: Linkages across CPP delivery levels

The diagram proposes mutually supportive linkages across CPP’s three delivery levels that are both
top-down (left-side, blue script) and bottom-up (right-side, grey script). From the top-down,
strategies, processes and support will flow from the BCEP PMT through the CPPCO to CPP partners.
From the bottom-up, results and learning will flow up from the CPP partner level (where most results
and learning will originate) through the CPPCO to the BCEP level.

The CPPCO is a crucial link in the delivery chain. The top-down processes involve the CPPCO
interpreting and applying BCEP strategies etc to CPP and engaging closely and proactively with CPP
partners to help them implement their plans and provide capacity development support. Most of the
functions related to financial and risk management, DFAT compliance and performance management
will be performed by the BCEP PMT enabling the CPPCO to focus on supporting CPP partners. The
bottom-up processes involve the CPPCO filtering, aggregating, and analysing CPP partners results and
facilitating collective forums to share and crystalise learning, leading to joint actions.

There are two critical factors for the success of the next phase. The first is that CPP partners are
proactively supported by the CPPCO to a) refine their development programming to take a more
strategic, outcomes-focussed approach and b) develop their organisational capacity—particularly in
the areas of policy engagement and social accountability, which are new for many partners. The
second is that CPP partners are given the flexibility to adapt and develop their current activities to this
new approach at a pace that is appropriate for their organisation. For some CPP partners, their current
activities may need to continue for much of CPP 4.1 and may only be changed by the start of CPP 4.2.

The CPPCO and CPP partners will work together to set up inter-linked delivery processes in the
Inception Period. The CPPCO will need to:

• set guidelines and frameworks within which CPP partners can develop their own processes
and plans; before then
• finalising CPPCO processes based on CPP partner processes and plans

The key CPPCO and CPP partner processes are outlined below. Each ANGO will support CPP partner
processes, with specific roles to be defined in the inception period.

21
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

CPPCO
The CPPCO will lead development on the following key processes and deliverables:

1. CPP Program Implementation Plan: due at the end of the inception period, the CPP
Implementation Plan will document the CPPCO’s approach to working with CPP partners to deliver
the outcomes in the CPP program logic. This plan will cover
• Program Background: update on the problem of service delivery to PNG’s vulnerable and
marginalised communities and relevant lessons learned
• Overall program approach to deliver the Program Logic
• Learning and collaboration approach (linked to MEL see below)
• GEDSI approach (see below)
• CPP Partner capacity development approach (see below)
• PNGC capacity development approach (see below)
• Program governance and management arrangements
• Financial and risk management, including three-year budget

2. MEL system and framework: The CPPCO will develop the MEL system to capture CPP partner
results against the CPP Program logic and provide data to the PMT to inform overall progress
against the BCEP Program logic. The arrangements for the CPP MEL system and framework are
outlined in Section 6.

3. Operations Manual: The CPPCO will develop an Operations Manual to outline the operational
systems and procedures for the efficient and effective implementation of CPP. The CPPCO and
CPP partners are the primary audience for the Operations Manual. The Operations Manual will
complement the CPP Implementation Plan.
The CPP Operations Manual will focus on the systems and procedures that are specific to CPP,
identifying when CPP will follow BCEP systems. The list below provides and indication of the
different types of systems and procedures to be managed by the CPPCO and the BCEP PMT. The
division of labour between the CPPCO and BCEP PMT will be clarified and confirmed in the
Inception period

CPP Operations BCEP Operations (relevant to CPP)

• Partner capacity development processes, • Financial management, including partner
including MEL & GEDSI technical support grant disbursements, acquittals, financial
audits, and due diligence
• Partner templates and guidelines: • Risk management and safeguarding
o Planning and activity development compliance
o Reporting
o Budgeting (see below)
• Partner MEL and GEDSI guidelines • Recruitment, procurement, sub-
contracting, and grant-making
• CPP Management and governance: • Specialist technical assistance: financial
o Structure and Terms of Reference for management, internal governance and
positions & governance bodies programmatic areas
o Recording of minutes etcl
• Internal communications • External communications

The template for the development of CPP Partner budgets will include a guide for the proportion
of grant to be allocated to pillars and management lines. The table below is indicative only. The

22
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

budget weightings are for discussion with all CPP partners and confirmation in the Inception
period.
Partner Grant Budgets: Indicative Breakdown
Budget line %
Pillar 1: Information access and evidence generation 23%
Pillar 2: Social accountability 15%
Pillar 3: Gender Equality Theology and GEDSI 15%
Pillar 4: Partner development and collaboration 20%
Management
• Prime program management and quality assurance 10%
• In-country program management 8%
• MEL 10%

4. Consolidated annual CPP work-plans and budgets: to be developed under the three-year
Implementation Plan for approval by DFAT on an annual basis. The consolidate Program work plan
should provide a summary of CPP partner work-plans and include the CPPCO work-plan activities.

5. Progress reports and partner annual audits: The CPPCO will collect CPP partner progress reports
to assemble regular consolidated CPP progress reports. The BCEP PMT will be responsible for
managing annual partner financial audits.

6. GEDSI approach and action plan: The CPP GEDSI approach and action plan will based on CPP
partner GEDSI action plans and aligned with BCEP’s GEDSI approach. The aim of the plan is to
promote cross-partner learning and the achievement GEDSI changes through DFAT’s twin-track
approach (combining mainstreaming and targeting). GEDSI support will focus on gender equality
and disability inclusion - as disability inclusion was identified as an area to improve by CPP
partners. The CPP GEDSI action plan is expected to include issues such as supporting CPP partner
learning on how to implement GET and monitor progress in changing the attitudes and behaviours
of both community members and church leaders.

7. Capacity development approach: The CPP approach to capacity development will be based on
past learning and include:
• An initial organisational assessment on each PNG church partner conducted by the CPPCO
jointly with the CPP partner (PNG Church and their ANGO). This assessment will identify
capacity weaknesses and provide a baseline against which capacity development can be
measured. The assessment will have a priority focus on capacity in strategic financial
management, GEDSI and MEL.
• Development of a tailored capacity development plan for each PNG partner. The plan will set
specific organisational strengthening targets, define the resources and budget required (eg.
whether the ANGO will be providing support or the CPPCO etc), and how progress will be
measured.
• Regular progress monitoring and review of progress against targets.
• Targets could include localisation, defined as the PNG Church partner having the capacity to
take over grant management responsibilities from their ANGO partner.

23
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

• Promote collective CPP partner learning on areas of common organisational weaknesses

through CPP working committees in financial management, GEDSI and MEL.36

8. PNGCC capacity development approach: The PNGCC’s involvement in CPP, unlike that of church
partners (above), is not based on a grant agreement relationship. The program logic underpinning
CPP outcomes is premised on PNGCC effectively performing its constitutional mandate and
facilitating collective church policy engagement at the national level. To support the PNGCC fulfill
this mandate the CPPCO will:
1. Provide tailored organisational capacity development support based around PNGCC’s
strategic plan; and
2. Support PNGCC to facilitate CPP learning and collaboration on social accountability

In the current phase, preliminary work was commenced on PNGCC’s strategic plan. In the Inception
Period, the CPPCO will support the PNGCC to complete this plan, including a budget, for endorsement
by the organisation’s relevant governance body (Heads of Churches Forum or General Assembly). The
plan is expected to cover the same components as partner program plans (see above). Once
completed, the CPPCO will discuss how CPP can best support PNGCC to implement the plan,
concentrating on those components most relevant to the Program’s outcomes. While PNGCC is
unlikely to receive grant funding, technical assistance and other support could be considered,
including funding office running costs.

The CPPCO will also look for opportunities for where PNGCC could leverage CPP’s resources. Examples
include, timing SLG and PNGCC Heads of Church Forum (section 5) meetings, which include most of
the same members, to take place sequentially at the same location; and co-locating the PNGCC office
with the CPPCO office.

CPP Partner level

At the CPP partner level, the key process and tools for delivery are:

1. CPP Partner plans: To be developed in the Inception period (July-December 2022) to cover the
three-year period under CPP 4.1 from January 2003 to December 2005. These plans are to be
based on existing plans for those CPP partners that already have such plans. At the end of CPP 4.1,
CPP partners will review their progress in implementing their plans and develop new four-year
plans to cover the period under CPP 4.2 from January 2026 to December 2029.

The purpose of these plans is to provide a framework under which CPP partners can deliver
activities to contribute to PNG church outcomes that align with the pillars in the CPP program
logic. In the Inception period, CPP partners will review and revise their current activities as well as
develop new activities to achieve CPP program results. As an example, Annex 7 illustrates how
ADRA’s 2021-2022 partner activity plan activities could be reviewed and revised to fit under the
CPP program logic.

With ANGO support, each CPP partner will develop activities in their comparative areas of strength
across CPP’s five thematic priority areas: health (including WASH and COVID-19 response),
education (including adult literacy), GBR and SARV prevention, community resilience (covering
climate change adaptation (CCA) and sustainable livelihoods) and peacebuilding. These thematic

36 The term “working committees” refers to groups that were set up in previous phases in key operational and strategic
areas. Working committees are distinct from “thematic working groups” which will also be continued from previous phases
in programmatic priority areas, such health etc.

24
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

priorities are based on the previous phases. On discussion with DFAT, CPP partners have some
flexibility to work in other thematic areas of strategic relevance to the CPP (and BCEP) program
logic, where urgent need or church comparative advantage can be demonstrated.

In Inception, the CPPCO will provide guidelines for the development of CPP Partner Plans. These
plans will cover:
• Problem analysis: analysis of specific governance issues that the CPP partner is seeking to
address (relating to the better delivery of public services and goods that are inclusive of
PNG’s vulnerable and marginalised communities).
• Expected outcomes and change pathways. CPP Partner’s high-level outcomes and the
logic models how activities will contribute to outcomes
• Implementation activities: designed to deliver each part in the CPP Partner logic model
• Management and governance arrangements
• Financial and risk management, including three-year budgets
• GEDSI Action Plans: mainstreaming and targeted (under pillar 3)
• Capacity development requirement and actions (see section above)
• Media engagement requirement and actions (to support community information,
education and communication activities)

The CPPCO guidelines for development of CPP Partner Plans will provide criteria for the types of
activities that are eligible for funding (such as those in alignment with CPP pillars with clear
GEDSI focus) and are not eligible (such as most infrastructure development/maintenance and
any activities normally funded by GoPNG). The CPPCO will review CPP partner plans and provide
feedback for strengthening before providing the plan to DFAT for final approval.

2. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Framework: to be based around the CPP partners
logic model and activities (in the three-year plan). The framework will include realistic and
achievable indicators, where relevant, adopting indicators from the CPP MEL framework. CPP
Partner MEL frameworks will also outline their approach for leading thematic working groups they
are responsible for, such as learning questions to be explored over the life of the program.

3. Annual Work-plans and budgets: to be developed under the three-year plan for approval by DFAT
on an Annual basis.

4. Progress reports and annual audits: The CPPCO will provide templates for progress reporting in
line with the grant disbursement cycle. CPP partners are expected to report six monthly against
their three-year plans and annual work plans on activity implementation/achievement of results
and budget delivery. CPP Partners will also be required to undertake annual financial audits for
accountability and learning/developmental purposes.

5. Management and Governance

5.1 Structure
The management and governance structure for the next phase of CPP are represented in Figure 3 and
explained further below.

25
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Figure 3: Management and Governance Structure

5.2 Responsibilities
This section presents the key management and governance responsibilities at program and partner
levels. In the Inception Period, the CPPCO (see 4.3 and 5.3) will develop the Program’s Operations
Manual which will provide more detail on the roles and responsibilities outlined below. The
Operations Manual will be developed in consultation with partners and approved by the Senior Church
Leaders Group (SLG) at the end of the Inception Period.

The key program-level management and governance bodies and their functions are:

Apex Governance Committee

The current Senior Church Leaders Group (SLG) continues from the current phase as CPP’s apex
decision-making body. The members of CPP Apex Governance Committee are the church leaders of
the seven CPP partners, the General-Secretary of the PNGCC, an ANGO partners’ representative,
GoPNG (DfCDR) representative, and a GoA representative. To streamline governance arrangements,
the current Partners Leadership Group, which has the same members as the SLG but sits under it will
not be continued.

The CPP Apex Governance Committee is responsible for the program’s strategic direction and
performance. This Committee will meet biannually to review the Program’s performance and endorse
reports, plans and other key documents (for example, the mid-term review). The heads of partners’
PNG development units (or relevant bodies responsible for CPP engagement) may attend this
Committee at the request of their Church leaders.

26
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

DFAT Justice, Accountability and Subnational Governance

The DFAT Justice, Accountability and Subnational Governance (JAS) Team is responsible for the
efficient and effective delivery of CPP in line with the directions set by the CPP SLG. 37 To perform this
function, the JAS Team reviews and approves:

• CPPCO program processes, plans, and reports and

• Partner program plans and reports

The JAS Team will have formal management meetings with the CPPCO on at least a monthly basis, and
more frequently during the inception period. They will directly engage with partners through regular
participation in collaboration and learning forums.

BCEP Program Management Team

Reporting to DFAT-JAS, the BCEP Program Management Team (PMT) is responsible for the effective
management of the overall BCEP program. They will have oversight of the CPPCO and provide
technical support (including social accountability, 38 coalition facilitation, policy advocacy and
research). They will also provide the following services across BCEP, including to the CPP:

• collaboration and learning processes, including MEL, GEDSI, political economy analysis and
communications
• administration of DFAT policies, including grants and financial management, risk management,
and PSEAH and child protection
• Consolidated BCEP program performance, financial and risk reporting to DFAT (including CPP)
• Liaison with DFAT on all program issues.

The BCEP PMT will be run by the DFAT appointed MC.

CPP Coordination Office

In the next phase the CPPCO is to have an enhanced role to support partners as detailed in section
4.3. In summary, the CPPCO’s main roles include:

• Proactively engaging with partners to identify risks, solve problems, building capacity and
document successes and learning;
• Producing consolidated CPP program performance, financial and risk reporting to the BCEP PMT
(including collating results from across partners);
• Coordinating with the BCEP on administration and compliance issues (including PSEAH and child
protection);
• Acting as secretariat for the other governance bodies (SLG, SDT etc); and
• Engaging regularly with DFAT-JAS on CPPCO implementation.

The CPPCO staffing complement will be configured to enable proactive engagement with partners and
the provision of tailored capacity development support. At a minimum, the CPPCO will require
dedicated professionals in GEDSI (with specific focus on gender equality and disability inclusion) and

37 Ultimately, the DFAT-JAS team is responsible to the Governments of Australia and PNG under the Comprehensive
Strategic Economic Partnership (CSEP), for the efficient and effective delivery of CPP
38 Both the CPPCO and the BCEP PMT are expected to include designated Social Accountability experts. The BCEP PMT will

oversight and coordinate with the CPPCO/Tearfund to ensure complementarity and learning in relation to social
accountability work. The design document will integrate the Social Accountability approach and work-plan the partners
have developed with Tearfund over 2021.

27
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

MEL, as well as other project management/capacity development professionals that can provide
ongoing, hands-on support to partners.

The MC will provide the CPPCO team and physical office. 39 The BCEP PMT is responsible for
performance management of the CPPCO. At the same time, the CPPCO will work directly to DFAT-JAS,
meeting them regularly.

The division of responsibilities between the CPPCO and BCEP PMT will be confirmed in the Inception
period. The table below is indicative:

Function CPP Operations BCEP Operations (relevant to

CPP)
Governance financial • CPP partner templates for • Partner grant disbursements,
management & developing budget and acquittals, financial audits,
operations financial reports and due diligence
• Support for CPP Management • Risk management and
and governance arrangements safeguarding compliance
• Recruitment & procurement
CPP Partner plans • Partner templates, guidelines • Review for alignment with
& assistance: BCEP processes
o Planning and activity
development
o MEL & Reporting
o Budgeting (see below)
Partner capacity • Core organisational • Financial and risk
development development management
• MEL, GEDSI • internal governance and
• Social accountability • other specialist technical
areas.
Communications • Internal communications • External communications

Strategic Development Team

The Strategic Development Team (SDT) 40 will have a similar function to that defined in the CPP
Charter. However, compared with past phases, the SDT will be more focussed on strategic program
issues and less on day-to-day operational/administrative issues. The SDT’s main means of strategic
engagement will be through six-monthly forums where CPP’s performance and learning over the
previous period will be reviewed and discussed (including financial progress). These forums could be
timed to fit with CPP’s reporting cycle to DFAT.

The membership of SDT will consist of the heads of development units of all PNG partners;
representatives of all ANGO partners; and a representative from each of DFAT and Office of Religion.

39 The location of the CPPCO office is a matter for the MC and DFAT in the Inception Period. Several partners requested
that the CPPCO be set up in a separate office to the BCEP PMT to facilitate partner engagement in the Program and
preserve CPP’s well-established identity as a distinct, faith-based development initiative. However, the considerable cost of
a separate offices (potentially leaving less funding for CPPCO core functions) needs to be weighed against such potential
benefits.
40 In the CPP Charter, the SDT is called the Senior Operations Group (SOG) but in practice is more commonly referred to by

the former name.

28
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

5.3 Transition and Inception deliverables

Transition
The key activities and milestones in the transition from phase 3 to the start of phase 4 are:
Activity/deliverable Resp. Month
1. BCEP PMT and CPPCO team mobilisation and office set-up MC March-April
2. BCEP PMT and CPPCO team meets with partners MC March-April
3. CPP Partner Grant Agreements novated from Abt to Cardno MC March
4. CPP Partner’s Inception Phase Core-activity Work-plans CPP April-June
• Each partner to develop work-plans and budgets for priority, core Partners
activities to be implemented over the 6-month inception period July-
December 2022
• Priority activities are those which are essential to continue because
a) they will be core to the partners work in the next phase
b) disruption to the activity will undermine existing partnerships and
beneficiary outcomes
• CPPCO to provide template and guidelines for work plans
• Negotiation of new grant agreements for inception period
5. CPPCO develop Program Inception Plan, covering: CPPCO July-Dec
• Supporting partners to develop 3-year Development Plans and MEL
Frameworks
• Developing the CPP MEL Plan and Framework (in alignment with
BCEP) (including reviewing the CPP Program Logic)
• Developing the CPP Operations Manual, with clear demarcation of
roles between BCEP, PMT & CPPCO on communications, risk
management, financial management and DFAT compliance issues
• Negotiating three-year grant agreements with partner following
approval of their program plans.
Inception
The key Inception period activities and deliverables at the start of phase 4.1 are:

Inception period activities Resp. Month

1. CPP Partner: CPP July-
• 3-year plans and budgets Partners December
• MEL frameworks
• First year detailed work plan and budget
(See 4.3)
2. CPP Operations Manual CPPCO July-Nov
3. CPP Implementation Plan CPPCO July-Nov
4. Internal CPP Communications Plan (in alignment with BCEP CPPCO Jul-Oct
Communications Plan) 2022
5. CPP Consolidated annual work plans and budgets CPPCO As approp.
6. 6 monthly Program Progress Reports CPPCO As approp.

6. Program monitoring, evaluation and learning

Monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) supports accountability and demonstrates the
effectiveness of program delivery and results. In particular, the MEL Framework (MELF) will address
the challenges of aggregating data across partners to provide results for the whole program, with a
balance between quantitative and qualitative date. The MELF provides evidence that contributes to
ongoing program improvement. A draft MELF is included in Annex 1.

As specified in earlier sections, the two end of program outcomes for CPP4 are:

29
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

• Government and Church communities constructively engage to deliver inclusive development

outcomes
• Government and Church decision-makers actively promote gender equality, disability, and
social inclusion

6.1 MEL Principles

The MEL for this program will measure progress towards outcomes by articulating the timing and
methods for data collection. It covers the initial 3.5 year timeframe of the program and will be updated
as needed to reflect changes in the program approach. It has been designed based on lessons learned
from the mid-term review of CPP3 and with input from program partners throughout the design
phase.

The following principles will apply to MEL across the program:

Program improvement: Ongoing monitoring is focused on learning quickly and adapting strategies
with a focus on increasing promising approaches.

Focus on outcomes over outputs: The MEL Framework strengthens focus on measuring,
understanding, and communicating outcomes across the program. This is supported by the CPPCO as
it a considerable shift from previous MEL approaches within CPP.

Collaborative learning: The MEL Framework prioritises sharing lessons between CPP’s partners and
the BCEP program. Given the complexity of this program, ways of working will need ongoing reflection
and adjustment.

Promoting gender equality, disability, and social inclusion: The MEL Framework emphasises a twin-
track approach to gender equality and social inclusion with a focus on both GEDSI mainstreaming
across all activities and GEDSI-focused activities, aligned with the DFAT Gender Equality Strategy
(2016-2020). The program is focused on documenting changes in social and gender attitudes and
behaviours, in addition to sex and disability disaggregated data.

6.2 Responsibility
The CPPCO will have overall responsibility for finalising and implementing the CPP Program MELF.

DFAT will appoint a Quality Technical and Review Group to conduct independent annual reviews of
the progress of all BECP components, including CPP, in achieving outcomes.

6.3 Implementation
MEL processes are required at two levels:

Program MEL: The CPPCO will develop and implement a Program-level MEL system to aggregate
results from individual partner program plans and collective interventions against the CPP theory of
change (ToC). The MEL system will include a MELF with a limited number of high-level qualitative and
quantitative indicators under which the results from partners’ program plans can be captured. While
each partners’ program plans will be different, they are expected to include similar outcomes, and
indicators with common features (such as changes in the behaviour of community members and
Church leaders) providing the basis for a cohesive, program-level ToC.

Program MEL will be used for progress reporting against the CPP ToC, informing learning on how to
improve, and providing data on CPP’s contribution to the higher-level outcomes in the BCEP ToC. In
the Inception Phase, the CPPCO will lead partners in a review and refinement of the CPP ToC and the
draft MELF, ensuring alignment with the BCEP ToC and setting targets.

30
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

Partner MEL: In the inception phase, the CPPCO will support each partner to develop their own MELF
to meet their organisation’s unique strategic plans, priorities, stakeholders, and objectives, while also
aligning with the program MELF. These Partner MELFs will provide information for partner progress
reporting against their program plans. The CPPCO will take results information from these reports to
show aggregate progress against the CPP ToC.

6.4 Data collection

Appropriate MEL tools will be identified to best support the MEL system developed in the Inception
Phase. However, for the sake of simplicity, systems could be based around ‘conventional’ result-based
management tools that track changes from ToC outputs to outcomes. However, such conventional
approaches often tend to rely on quantitative indicators which are not good at capturing changes in
behaviours and relationships that characterise the influencing work proposed in the draft CPP ToC;
nor helpful to understand how and why changes have occurred. To meet these purposes, the design
team proposes that conventional MEL tools could be complemented with the inclusion of more
innovative tools to capture qualitative results. The draft MELF is being developed with some indicators
based on tools being adopted by the overarching BCEP Program.

The following tools have proven useful in collecting the types of qualitative results mentioned above:

• Outcome Mapping: a planning, monitoring and evaluation approach that captures changes in
the behaviour and relationships of key actors and has been used extensively on social
accountability initiatives.

• Change Strategy Testing: developed by The Asia Foundations in the Philippines for their DFAT-
funded Coalitions of Change work and successfully applied in PNG under DCP. This involves
developing a Change Strategy in the design of each project, which is revised on a six-monthly
basis or more frequently if required. The approach allows for new contextual or technical
knowledge to be incorporated, results to be recorded, and objectives reviewed and revised.

• KAP surveys: The CPP partners and CPPCO will collaborate on the development of common
knowledge, attitude and practice surveys and pre-post surveys to ensure that data is collected
about GEDSI attitudes at the baseline, mid-line and at the end of project.

The value of these approaches is that they help implementers to think strategically and provide useful
information for reflection and learning. Moreover, tracking progress in this way produces evidence in
support of claims of contribution to the results observed.

Results database: The BCEP design also proposes the development of a database to record qualitative
and quantitative results data and financial information. The CPPCO should have access to this
database to directly input CPP information.

6.4 Planning and Reporting Cycles

Partners will report to the CPPCO on a six-monthly basis. The CPPCO will use individual partner reports
to prepare consolidated and summarised six monthly program reports to DFAT. Program reports will
also provide information on CPPCO’s activities including the effectiveness of its capacity development
support to partners. These program reports to DFAT will be provided to CPP partners and be discussed
in SDT reflection meetings.

Similarly, partners will prepare annual plans against their three-year program plans. From partner
program plans, and against the three Program Implementation Plan, the CPPCO will develop annual

31
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

plans to submit to DFAT, which will also be shared with CPP partners and discussed in SDT reflection
meetings.

6.5 Learning Processes

Partner collaboration and learning lies at the heart of CPP. The CPPCO will be responsible for
oversighting all collaboration and learning initiatives, though individual partners may lead thematic
working groups in identified areas, following current CPP practices.

In the Inception Phase, the CPPCO will develop learning processes as part of setting up the CPP MEL
systems. Learning processes will align with BCEP learning processes and include learning objectives,
questions, and topics and how these are expected to contribute toward effectiveness. The draft MELF
has been set up to measure the contribution of CPP learning to CPP outcomes. The CPPCO will have
capacity to fund applied research to support learning objectives.

More broadly, the CPPCO will develop learning processes and culture across the program to facilitate
all partners to learn before, during and after delivery. The aim is to develop a positive learning culture
that accelerates learning, both from success and failure, and that is backed by effective
communications so that successes can be taken to scale where possible and that there is ‘failing fast’
to avoid replication of unsuccessful interventions.

The aim is to strengthen CPP collaboration and learning by going beyond existing partners to include
other BCEP partners. Established CPP processes for collaboration and learning will be continued and
new BCEP process added. The main learning mechanisms will be:

• BCEP Learning processes: These will be facilitated by the BCEP PMT and will focus on learning
between BCEP components to build coordination and synergy and breakdown silos. As the
program evolves, learning opportunities will be developed to promote coordination with
other Australian sectoral investments where accountability of service providers is an
important factor (for example, DFAT’s Law and Justice program on GBV and SARV policy
advocacy, PNG Partnerships for Improving Education and the PNG-Australia Transition to
Health on education and health policy advocacy). 41 Up to two BCEP learning events will be
facilitated on identified topics per year.

• CPP Learning processes: The CPPCO will facilitate learning reflection processes on thematic
areas and overall progress against the CPP ToC. The former processes will build on existing
CPP forums and groups for GEDSI, MEL, and financial management. The latter processes will
focus on learning between partners on effective program implementation to deliver
outcomes. CPP Learning is also expected to involve around 1-2 learning events on identified
topics per year. Processes include:

• Thematic Working Groups. The CPPCO will continue to facilitate CPP Thematic Working
Groups, led by CPP partners. The topic for these groups will be discussed and agree with CPP
partner in the Inception period, but some of the current thematic work groups are expected
to continue. In addition, a Social Accountability thematic working group, led by the PNGCC will
be established.
• Standing Committees. The CPPCO will facilitate and lead standing committees (SC) to
promote organisation development in the three key areas of: GEDSI, MEL and financial

41In the Inception Period, the MC will work with DFAT to identify opportunities and mechanisms for building synergies with
these and other DFAT programs.

32
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

management. These working committees will build on the CPP groups already established in
these areas.
• CPP Six-monthly partner reflections and learning forums. These will mainly comprise the
members of the SDT and should include finance team representatives. 42 These meetings focus
on reviewing program progress as captured in six-monthly reports to DFAT with a focus on
discussing learning and analysing how to improve program outcomes. These will be facilitated
by the CPPCO and involve the current members43 of the SDT/SoG. 44

6.6 Resources
CPP resourcing for MEL is expected to follow BCEP resourcing levels. The CPPCO is expected to spend
approximately 10% of its budget on MEL resources. The CPPCO is expected to have a similar structure
to the current phase, with 6-7 full-time professionals. This will include one senior MEL professional
and a junior professional, primarily responsible for data collation. However, all members of the CPPCO
will have some responsibility for MEL, under the leadership of the senior MEL CPPCO professional.
This senior CPPCO MEL professional will be responsible for developing and implementing the CPP MEL
plan and framework, as well as oversighting MEL capacity development to partners. They will work
closely with the BCEP MEL professional (in the BCEP Program Management Team).

Similarly, each partner is expected to allocate 7-10% of their budgets to MEL. Most partners already
have dedicated MEL professionals. In the Inception Phase, the CPPCO will work with partners to
confirm their MEL resourcing requirements when helping them develop their own MELF.

In recognition of the limited expertise in MEL in PNG, the CPP MEL working group provide an important
mechanism for developing the skills of partners as well as CPPCO staff.

The development of three-year partner program plans with MEL Frameworks, capacity development
plans and budgets are one of the main innovations of the next phase. The CPPCO will provide detailed
guidance and support to partners in the development of these program plans (see section 5.2).

For partners who have existing development work program plans, CPP will seek to base funding
around these existing strategies. Partner will be asked to identify elements of their strategies most
relevant to CPP outcomes.

6.6 Evaluation
The next phase of CPP is to be implemented over 7.5 years, divided into an initial 3.5 year period, with
a possible four-year extension. An independent mid-term review of CPP will be conducted after
approximately three years of implementation to assess effectiveness and likelihood of achieving
program outcomes by the end of the four-year extension period. This review will be used to determine
whether CPP is continued into the second period. The CPP evaluation will also inform a similar mid-
term review of the overall BCEP.
In addition, the CPP will support evaluations of individual partners’ strategic and thematic collective
action work.

42 In the early days it is unlikely the finance staff will feel confident about participating but part of building the capacity is to
build the general understanding that a strong finance voice is part of the mutually beneficial systematic approach
43 The current membership consists of: Heads of development units across CPP PNG Churches; two ANGO representatives

representing all ANGOs; DFAT; and OoR representative.

44 The SDT (Senior Development Team) was renamed the SoG (Senior Operations Group) in the most recent CPP Charter

33
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

7. Budget
7.1 High level Program budget breakdown
Table 1 below provides a high-level breakdown of the budget for CPP 4.1. This budget is further
explained below.
Table 1: Indicative, high-level CPP 4.1 budget breakdown
Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total

Partner grants 6,300,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 25,200,000

CPPCO:
a) Core functions (staff & ops)
650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 2,600,000
b) Programming support & capacity
development:

• Social Accountability 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,000,000

• Technical Assistance (various) 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000

• PNGCC capacity development 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000

• Research and Learning 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 200,000

• DFAT strategic opportunities
(TBD) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 600,000

Subtotal 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 6,800,000

Total 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 32,000,000

The CPP total annual budget is set at AUD 8 million per year, which is the same as the current phase
of the program. The budget breakdown is indicative only and there is scope to move funding across
budget lines with DFAT’s approval.

To provide the CPPCO with increased resources and capacity to support partner capacity development
and social accountability activities, the grant ceiling for each partner has dropped slightly from the
current phase to AUD900,000 per annum. This is exclusive of dedicated funding for social
accountability pilot activities (and technical support), additional strategic opportunities (such as
responding to emerging crises) and capacity building of PNGCC. Additional funding may be available
to CPP partners who meet expenditure forecasts and acquittal requirements (if there are underspends
across components of the BCEP program).

For transparency, the budget outlines the CPPCO key budget lines

a) Core functions (staff and operations): this includes costs for BCEP PMT oversight and support
(note 2)
b) Programming support & capacity development:
• Social Accountability (an indicative amount)
• Technical Assistance (various) (estimate)
• PNGCC capacity development (estimate, based on DFAT advice)
• Research and Learning (estimated)
• DFAT strategic opportunities (for DFAT use)

34
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

8. Risk management and safeguards

CPP is a high-risk investment, as assessed against DFAT’s Risks and Safeguard Tool. The most important
strategic risks and control measures are summarised here (see Annex 2)

8.1 Key Risks and mitigation

Major risks Mitigations
a) Operating context
• Ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which could • To respond to COVID-19 issues, the MC will be
disrupt Program inception and required to develop a Business Continuity Plan
implementation, making it difficult for the and a Risk and Safeguard Management Plan
Program to develop trusting stakeholder during the inception period to ensure essential
relationships which are vital to the success of functions can be carried out, while reducing
the Program COVID-19 risk to personnel as far as possible
• National elections in May 2022 could district • To respond to potential disruption from the
program partners and beneficiaries over election, Program and partner plans will have
several months and disrupt consultation plans flexibility to respond to changing priorities and
in the Inception period. context
b) Implementation to achieve end of program outcomes
• End of program outcome 1: constructive • Support partners to develop their own social
citizen-government engagement. In delivering accountability/problem solving approaches. This
services on behalf of government, churches are method involves first strengthening churches
also agents of the state, potentially own internal accountability understanding,
compromising their status as trusted culture and processes before supporting
intermediaries. Moreover, as churches have churches to pilot their approaches.
some direct power over delivery of services,
focussing on citizen-government engagement
could distract from where problems could be
solved by more effective community-church
engagement. A final risk is whether churches
have the capacity and experience to take a
problem-solving approach. 45
• End of program outcome 2: inclusive citizen- • Supported partners to carefully select the issues
government engagement. Some church on which they seek to influence change and
leaders, and male champions, particularly in identify leaders who are champions in those
remote and rural areas reinforce discriminatory areas. Develop strategies to influence attitudes
social norms. Challenging norms and attitudes, and behaviours of Church leaders. At the PNGCC
particularly regarding gender equality can level, the Program will facilitate open
result backlash and increased violence against communication between church leaders on the
women. importance of supporting strong GEDSI policies.
At the partner level, GEDSI action plans and
learning on their implementation will be widely
shared with CPP and the broader BCEP program.
Program will monitor for signs of a potential
backlash and change program to avoid this.
8.2 Risk control policies and processes
Risks will be carefully managed by DFAT-JAS to ensure that program implementation is not negatively
impacted by risks. Post will ensure that the MC is assessing and managing risks according to DFAT’s

45A problem-solving approach is almost the opposite to the ‘assets-based’ approach that is emphasized in the CPP Charter.
A recent DCP Case study on CPP’s collective action work questioned partners capacity to take a problem-solving approach
(Abt, November 2021)

35
CPP-4 Design Document: FINAL DRAFT

requirements. These requirements will be stipulated in the head contract and assessed on a regular
basis.

The MC will update the Risks and Safeguards Assessment in the Inception Report and in all future
progress reports (Six-Monthly). In the Inception Period, the MC will put in place a rigorous risk
management and fraud control system in accordance with DFAT’s requirements as outlined in DFAT’s
Risk Management Guide for Aid Investments (which includes the Risk and Safeguards Tool) and Fraud
Control Toolkit for Funding Recipients.

This system will ensure that that DFAT’s policies are adhered to by all CPP partners, including
environment and social safeguards, fraud control, child protection and prevention of sexual abuse and
harassment, gender equality and social inclusion, and health and safety.

ANGOs have Child Protection and PSEAH policies are compliant with all DFAT safeguards as part of
their DFAT NGO accreditation. As the prime grant holders, ANGOs provide ongoing support to PNG
church partners with oversight from the CPPCO. Support to compliance of PNG Church partners will
be a priority focus of the organisational capacity development plans.
Child protection and PSEAH: The risk of child protection SEAH incidences is rated as high due to the
dispersed nature of the implementation of the CPP. The PSEAH and Child Protection risks will be
mitigated ANGOs and the CPPO through ongoing training and support for both Child protection and
PSEAH for PNG church partners. This support includes do no harm approaches, identifying and
mitigating risks and collaborating with partners and stakeholders throughout implementation.
The MC is responsible for monitoring and reporting compliance with DFAT policies. They are also
responsible for communication with, and training of, all Program staff and sub-contractors/grantees
in the implementation of policies and tools to ensure adherence throughout implementation. The MC
will build into sub-contractor/grantee agreements, their obligations for understanding and adherence
to DFAT policies. Auditing and reporting requirements outlined in these policies will also be included
in operational procedures including regular updates to DFAT’s Risk and Safeguard Tool and compliance
reported six-monthly (and the Inception Report). The MC must have experience in the effective
management of fiduciary risk and fraud control to DFAT requirements and report to DFAT on a regular
basis as outlined in the head contract. This will include oversight of partner compliance with
operational policies, requiring expertise at the operational level, to review partner financial reports
and undertake additional due diligence and risk processes to ensure compliance with safeguards and
financial policies.

36