I climbed Mt Jackson (4052ft, 1235m) on 2 June, 2017. This was my first climb of 2017, having taken a rest over the long, cold winter of 2016-2017. In 2016, I had been able to start hiking in early May, but this year we had much more snow, and longer and later cold spells. So I gave May 2017 a miss, and began to tackle the 4000-footers in early June…
I began a new journey in May of 2016, tracing two long arcs in my life:
- Climbing all 48 mountains in New Hampshire that are at least 4000 feet tall (1219m), what is called “peak-bagging” by local climbers. I’m describing, in words and images, the ascent of each of these peaks – mostly done solo, but sometimes with a friend or two;
- Working in international development during the MDG era: what was it like in the sector as it boomed, and evolved, from the response to the Ethiopian crisis in the mid-1980’s through to the conclusion of the Millennium Development Goals in 2015.
Leaving Plan International after 15 years, the last 4 of which were spent as Country Director in Viet Nam, I was fortunate to join CCF as a consultant. My task, over what became two great years, was to help develop a new program approach for the agency. This was exciting and opportune for me: I had been reflecting a lot about how things had changed in the development sector, and at that point I had a lot of experience across five continents, in a wide variety of roles, under my belt.
So I was very ready for the challenge that CCF offered me – I felt I had a lot to offer. Little did I know that I was also stepping into a great environment, where CCF’s senior programmatic leadership, and the CEO, were beginning a very exciting journey of reflection and discovery.
My first task had been to research current thinking, and best practices, across our sector. Last time I described that research and the recommendations that had emerged. To my delight, Daniel Wordsworth and Michelle Poulton embraced my findings enthusiastically, and senior management had endorsed them as well.
Our next step was to take the research that I had done, with its recommended themes of change, and create the specifics of CCF’s new program approach. In this, Daniel took the lead, with me acting as a sounding board and advocate for the principles and themes of the prior research. This was appropriate, as now we would be detailing concretely how the agency would implement programs, core stuff for CCF. So I moved into more of an advisory role, for now.
In this blog post, I want to share the details of what we came up with, and how CCF ended up proceeding.
As I drove north from Durham, the weather forecast was problematic, with a strong chance of afternoon rain. But I decided to take the chance. This was #24 of my 48 climbs, and I hadn’t had any rain so far, on any of those climbs. So I figured I was on a long run of good luck – couldn’t possibly rain this time, right?
I left Durham at around 7:45am, and arrived at the trailhead at just after 10am, parking just off of Rt 302 near Crawford Notch.
Even though it was June, I could see some patches of snow above me in the mountains as I approached Crawford Notch, but all was clear on the road.
My plan was to walk up the Webster Cliff Trail to Mt Webster, on to Mt Jackson, and then take the Webster-Jackson Trial to loop back to Mt Webster. I would retrace my steps from there, on Webster Cliff Trail, to the trailhead.
As I began the hike, it was a nice day, cool and a bit cloudy. I crossed Rt 302 and quickly reached a pedestrian bridge over the Saco River. The Webster Cliff Trail forms part of the Appalachian Trail here:
The first section of the Webster Cliff Trail was moderately steep. Though the temperature was cool, I heated up as I ascended. It was a beautiful day hiking, still sunny at this point:
Clouds gathered as I ascended, and by 11am the sun was mostly gone. The trail was consistently steep and became rockier as I ascended the Webster Cliff Trail, passing above the tree line. Once I was onto the ridge, the views were great, looking north up into Crawford Notch:
Here are two views of the ridge, taken over a year later, from across the way on Mt Willey:
I ran into some snow remnants along the path as I approached Mt Webster! Just proves, once again, that you have to be prepared for snow – even in June!
I was prepared this time… but the snow patches were not an issue this time!:
The walking was good, but windy, and clouds were building from the west. So far, I had not seen any other hikers…
I arrived at Mt Webster ( 3910ft, 1192m – not a 4000-footer) at 1:30pm. The plan was to rejoin the trail here on my way back, via the Webster-Jackson Trail.
To the west, I could look across Crawford Notch and see Mt Tom and Mt Field and Mt Willey. The views north towards the Presidential Range were great, though Mt Washington was in the clouds. There were patches of blue sky above me, but darker skies to the west.
Just before reaching Mt Webster, I passed a through hiker: he was hiking north, doing the entire Appalachian Trail. Impressive, since it was only early June, that he was this far north. Maybe in his 60’s, with a grey beard. He asked me what my “trail handle” was, assuming (I guess) that I was also a through hiker. I just laughed and said: “well, my name is Mark”!
“These are some heavy hills” I said.
“Hills?!” he exclaimed.
So I guess he was feeling the ascent, as I was. But, having just restocked his pack with food, he was carrying much more weight than I was…
Just past Mt Webster, I began the Webster-Jackson loop that planned to take; first, continuing on to Mt Jackson, then down and around to return to Mt Webster:
Here I encountered the second hiker of the day. Dan was hiking with the guy I had met earlier, and was waiting here for him. Dan had joined the other guy a week ago, for part of the through hike. Dan seemed tired and ready to get off the trail, asking me what was the fastest way to the road. Seemed like he had had enough, describing lots of rain and snow and ice over the last days.
I left Dan there, and arrived at the top of Mt Jackson at about 1:45pm, and ate lunch – a tried-and-true “Veggie Delite” sandwich from Subway. It began to sprinkle, light rain falling.
Here the views of the Presidential Range were great, though Mt Washington was still in the clouds. Mispah Springs Hut can just be seen, a speck of light in the middle left of the photo:
The Mt Washington Hotel, in Bretton Woods, can be seen here in the distance with distinctive red roofs, looking north through Crawford Notch:
From the top of Mt Jackson, the Webster Cliff Trail continues on towards Mt Pierce (which I had climbed with Raúl and Kelly earlier in the year) and the rest of the Presidential Range. I turned left here, taking the Webster-Jackson Trail, hoping to loop back up to Mt Webster. My hunch was that Dan was going to wait for his friend, and then follow me down, since that would be the quickest way to “civilization” and he was ready for a shower!
I began to drop steadily down Webster-Jackson, a typical White-Mountains hike, rock-hopping. But I was a bit surprised, and became increasingly concerned, at the amount of elevation I was losing, as I went down, and down, and down… I knew I’d have to make up this elevation drop, every step of it!
I passed five people coming up – two young men running the trail, a mother and daughter (probably going up to stay at the Mispah Hut), and one guy huffing and puffing.
I arrived at the bottom of the loop at just before 3pm, exhausted and now regretting having taken this detour. Cursing every step down, which I would have to make up, soon: because, from here, it would be a long way back up to Mt Webster, and it was beginning to rain steadily.
At the bottom of the Webster-Jackson loop, there is a beautiful waterfall, and the temperature was much lower than it had been at the top of the ridge:
It was a VERY LONG slog back up to the top of Mt Webster, where I arrived again at 3:45pm, very tired and very wet. It had become much colder here since I had passed through earlier in the day, now windy and steadily raining.
Here I would walk back along the ridge. And I began to feel quite nervous about the possibility of slipping on the slick rocks – from here it would be all downhill, and a fall on the now-slippery rocks could be trouble!
I didn’t really stop at the top of Mt Webster – too cold and rainy. Conditions had changed a lot since I’d passed this peak that morning!
Although it was raining steadily, some blue sky did roll by once in a while:
From here I began the descent back to Rt 302, and soon the trees began to grow in size, and cover me. I never slipped on the wet granite stones, though I came close a couple of times. I had to take it very slowly, taking care as I went across every one of the many rocks… But I got soaked through – for the first time in 24 climbs!
I was back at my car at about 6:15pm; it was raining hard and 49 degrees.
The Mt Jackson climb was great, despite the unwelcome rain and cold. It was longer and harder than expected – nothing technical or super-steep, just long, due mostly to my decision to do the loop down from the summit and back up, and because I had to take care on the slick rocks coming down.
Once CCF’s management had endorsed my recommendations for their new program approach, Daniel and I began the design process. Along the way, CCF’s President John Schulz had baptized the new approach as “Bright Futures,” which was very smart: branding the change with an inspirational, catchy name that also captured the essence of what we were proposing would help open people to the idea.
Here I will be quoting extensively from a document that Daniel and I worked on, but which was primarily his. He boiled down the essence of Bright Futures into three fundamental objectives. Bright Futures would:
- Broaden, deepen and bring about longer-lasting impact in children’s lives;
- Fortify sponsorship;
- Strengthen accountability.
Bright Futures would be based on the belief that people must be given the space to design and shape the programs that will be carried out in their communities and countries. The fundamental principle that guided our thinking was that there was no universal strategy that CCF could apply across the complex and different contexts in which it worked. Therefore, the emphasis was not on a framework that outlined what should be done – e.g. health, education, etc – but rather on a set of key processes that would set the tone of the agency’s work and provide coherence to its programming around the world.
There were five key work processes, qualities of work, that would characterize CCF’s Bright Futures programming. Each of these was firmly linked to the transformational themes that my own research had identified, but Daniel managed to put things in clear and incisive terms, displaying the brilliant insights I had come to admire:
Grounded and Connected: Bright Futures programs would be integrated into the surrounding social environment, contributing to and drawing from the assets and opportunities that this environment provides.
To accomplish this, programs would be based in well-defined, homogeneous “Areas”, matching the level of government service provision – often the “district” level. Program planning would be based at the community level, and program implementation would be accountable to local communities, but programs would be integrated with relevant efforts of the government and other development agencies, at local and national levels. CCF staff would be decentralized, close to communities, to ensure on-the-spot follow-up, using participatory methods and strict project management discipline to ensure effective program implementation. By partnering with other organizations, building the capacity of local people, and seizing opportunities to replicate program methods wherever possible, impact would be expanded into other communities within the Area and beyond.
These would be big changes for CCF, on many dimensions. Current programming was exclusively at village or community level, but it was disconnected from efforts to overcome poverty that were taking place at other levels. Staff visited programs rarely, typically only once per year. And notions of replication or even sustainability were rarely addressed. Making these changes a reality would be challenging.
Achieve Long-Term Change: Bright Futures programs would be grounded in an understanding of poverty and of the causes of poverty, and designed to make a long-lasting difference in the lives of poor children.
To accomplish this, program design would begin with immersion in communities and a thorough analysis of the deeper issues of poverty confronting children and communities. Program interventions would then take place where the causes of child poverty were found, whether at child, family, community, or area (district) levels. Programs would be designed and implemented according to a series of three-year strategic plans, and would consist of a comprehensive set of integrated “Project Activities” that had specific objectives, implementation plans and budgets. Financial flow would follow budget and implementation.
As we began to design Bright Futures, CCF’s programming was guided by an agency-wide set of outcomes that had been articulated some years before, called “AIMES.” These “outcomes” were really more of a set of indicators, most of which were tightly focused on basic needs such as immunization, primary-school completion, etc. Communities seemed to view these indicators as a menu, from which they selected each year. And, as I mentioned above, interventions were exclusively at village or community level.
With the advent of Bright Futures, the findings of the CCF Poverty Study, and of my own research, we would fundamentally change these practices. From now on, there would be no “menu” to draw from; rather, CCF would help local organizations to grapple with the causes of child poverty, viewing that poverty in a broader way, and consulting deeply with local people and children; staff would then create an “Area Strategic Plan” (“ASP”) that outlined how programming would address these causes across the “Area.”
(Details of how the ASP would be designed will be included in my next posting, stay tuned!)
Build People: Bright Futures programs seek to build a stronger society with the ability to cooperate for the good of children and families.
To accomplish this, programs would build Federations and Associations of poor children, youth and adults that represent the interests of excluded and deprived people. These entities would manage program implementation (mostly) through and with partners. Programs would be implemented through local bodies such as district government, NGOs, or community-based organizations, building the capacity of these groups to effectively implement solutions to issues facing poor children. A long-term, planned approach to capacity building would be adopted, that reinforced and strengthened local competencies and organizations so that communities could continue their efforts to build bright futures for their children long after CCF had phased out of their communities. This approach would include clearly articulated and time-bound entry and exit conditions, and specific milestones to gauge progress towards exit.
This was another big and challenging change. CCF would continue to work with parents’ associations at community level, as it had been doing, because this was a real strength of the agency. However, these associations tended to lack capacity, were left to fend for themselves, and did not interact with other stakeholders and “duty-bearers” around them.
All of this would change with Bright Futures. Parents’ associations would now be “federated” to district level, and the Parent’s Federations would be the primary bodies that CCF worked with and for. These Federations, being located at the “district” level, would interact with local government service providers (“duty bearers”), serving as interest groups on behalf of poor and excluded people. And the Parents’ Federations would, normally, not be seen as program implementors. Rather, they would – at least in the first instance – locate local partners that could implement the kinds of projects that were identified in the ASP.
Here we had a challenge, as we moved the existing Parents’ Associations into very different roles, where they no longer controlled funds as they had previously. There were many vested interests involved here, and we anticipated opposition from people who had learned to extract benefits informally, especially given that in the previous model CCF’s staff had been very hands-off and remote from program implementation. And the very idea of “federating” and influencing local duty-bearers was completely new to CCF.
Show Impact: Bright Futures programs demonstrate the impact of our work in ways that matter to us and the children and communities we work with.
To accomplish this, using CCF’s poverty framework of Deprivation, Exclusion, and Vulnerability, the National Office would clearly articulate the organization’s niche, and demonstrate its particular contribution. The outputs of each project would be rigorously monitored to ensure effective implementation, and programs would likewise be carefully monitored to ensure relevance to enrolled children.
Before Bright Futures, CCF’s National Offices had very little influence on programming. If a local Parents’ Association was not breaking any rules, then funding went directly from CCF’s headquarters in Richmond, Virginia to the Association, without intervention from the National Office. Only when a serious, usually finance- or audit-related, issue was identified could the National Office intervene, and then they could only halt fund transmissions and await remedial action from Richmond.
Now, the National Office and local Area team would be monitoring project implementation on a regular basis, using techniques that ensured that the voices of local children were central to the process of monitoring and evaluation. We would have to develop tools for this.
Recognize Each Child’s Gift: Bright Futures programs recognize and value each particular child as a unique and precious individual.
To accomplish this, programs would be designed to facilitate the development of each child in holistic ways, taking into account the different phases of development through which each child passes. The voices of children would be heard and would shape the direction of programs. CCF would promote children and youth as leaders in their own development, and in the development of their communities and societies. This would now be central to program implementation.
While the local Parents’ Associations would be retained, and federated to district level, two new forms of Association and Federation would be introduced: of children, and of youth. These new Associations and Federations would be given prominent roles in program design and project implementation, as appropriate to their age.
These were all big, fundamentally-disruptive changes, involving seismic shifts in every aspect of CCF’s program work. I felt that we had incorporated much of the learning and reflection that I had done, beginning in my Peace Corps days and all the way through my 15 years with Plan – this was the best way to make a real, lasting difference!
Once Daniel and Michelle were happy with the way that we were articulating Bright Futures, our next step was to get senior-management and board approval.
I was very pleased that, in the end, CCF’s leaders were very supportive of what Daniel was proposing. But, in a note of caution given the magnitude of the changes we were proposing, we were asked to pilot test the approach before rolling it out.
This cautious approach made sense to me, and I was delighted that Daniel asked me to continue as an outside consultant, to oversee and support the pilot National Offices, documenting their experience and our learning as the Bright Futures approach was tested.
We then began to consider where we should pilot test. First, we asked for volunteers across CCF’s National Offices and then, after creating a short list of viable options, we reviewed the status of each of the National Offices remaining on the list. We quickly came to the conclusion that we would select one National Office in each of the continents where the majority of CCF’s work took place:
In the Americas, we chose Ecuador. The office there was well-run, stable, and was regarded as a model in many ways. The National Director (Carlos Montúfar) was a strong leader, and he and his team were enthusiastic about being Bright Futures “pilots”;
In Africa, we chose Uganda. Here things were a bit different than in Ecuador: the Uganda office was considered by many in CCF as needed a bit of a shakeup. James Ameda was a senior National Director and was supportive of the pilot, but there were some tensions in his team and performance across CCF/Uganda in some areas was weak;
- For Asia, we decided to choose the Philippines office. The office in Manila was well-
run, with high morale and strong leadership in the form of Nini Hamili, a charismatic and long-tenured National Director. Nini was a very strong leader, who sidelined as a mediator in violent Mindanao – I came to see how courageous Nini was…
Soon I would begin regularly to visit the three pilot offices, training them on the methods and systems that were being developed for Bright Futures, accompanying them as they learned and adapted, documenting our experience.
It was a great privilege working with Carlos, James, and Nini and their teams – they had taken on a huge challenge: not only did Bright Futures represent a set of fundamental shifts in what they were accustomed to doing, but they were asked to continue to manage their programs the old way in the areas of their country where Bright Futures wasn’t being introduced.
And it was equally impressive working with Daniel and Michelle at CCF’s Richmond headquarters, along with staff like Victoria Adams, Mike Raikovitz, and many others, and fellow consultants Jon Kurtz and Andrew Couldridge.
Next time, I will go into much more detail on the pilot testing of Bright Futures, including how we designed and implemented perhaps the most fundamental program-related system, Area Strategic Planning.
Here are links to other blogs in this series. Eventually there will be 48 articles, each one about climbing one of New Hampshire’s 4000-footers, and also reflecting on a career in international development:
- Mt Tom (1) – A New Journey;
- Mt Field (2) – Potable Water in Ecuador;
- Mt Moosilauke (3) – A Water System for San Rafael (part 1);
- Mt Flume (4) – A Windmill for San Rafael (part 2);
- Mt Liberty (5) – Onward to Colombia, Plan International in Tuluá;
- Mt Osceola (6) – Three Years in Tuluá;
- East Osceola (7) – Potable Water for Cienegueta;
- Mt Passaconaway (8) – The South America Regional Office;
- Mt Whiteface (9) – Empowerment!;
- North Tripyramid (10) – Total Quality Management for Plan International;
- Middle Tripyramid (11) – To International Headquarters!;
- North Kinsman (12) – Fighting Fragmentation and Building Unity: New Program Goals and Principles for Plan International;
- South Kinsman (13) – A Growth Plan for Plan International;
- Mt Carrigain (14) – Restructuring Plan International;
- Mt Eisenhower (15) – A Guest Blog: Max van der Schalk Reflects on 5 Years at Plan’s International Headquarters;
- Mt Pierce (16) – Four Years At Plan’s International Headquarters;
- Mt Hancock (17) – Hanoi, 1998;
- South Hancock (18) – Plan’s Team in Viet Nam (1998-2002);
- Wildcat “D” Peak (19) – Plan’s Work in Viet Nam;
- Wildcat Mountain (20) – The Large Grants Implementation Unit in Viet Nam;
- Middle Carter (21) – Things Had Changed;
- South Carter (22) – CCF’s Organizational Capacity Assessment and Child Poverty Study;
- Mt Tecumseh (23) – Researching CCF’s New Program Approach;
- Mt Jackson (24) – The Bright Futures Program Approach;
- Mt Isolation (25) – Pilot Testing Bright Futures;
- Mt Lincoln (26) – Change, Strategy and Culture: Bright Futures 101;
- Mt Lafayette (27) – Collective Action for Human Rights;
- Mt Willey (28) – Navigating Principle and Pragmatism, Working With UUSC’s Bargaining Unit;
- Cannon Mountain (29) – UUSC Just Democracy;
- Carter Dome (30) – A (Failed) Merger In the INGO Sector (1997);
- Galehead Mountain (31) – What We Think About When We Think About A Great INGO Program;
- Mt Garfield (32) – Building Strong INGO Teams: Clarity, Trust, Inspiration.