Designing Effective Defence and Security Capacity Building: Key Considerations from Complex Environments

Attempts to build the capacity of partner security institutions are frequently characterised by challenges related to both the design and delivery of such initiatives.  Based on our experience of delivering many such programmes in fragile and conflict affected settings, we have pulled together some lessons and considerations to help ensure greater impact.

Capacity building should not be conceived as an external intervention imposed on a largely passive partner lacking in agency.

The first step therefore is to undertake a participatory needs assessment and consultation process which includes coordination, communication and deconfliction with other internal and external stakeholders.  At the design stage it is critical to develop an evaluative framework both to measure results but more importantly to drive adaptive learning.  Assessing knowledge and skills gains needs to be complemented by efforts to look at whether participants are able to utilise these skills or knowledge within their organisation and whether as a result, a contribution is made to institutional change.  At the outset consideration must be given to sustainability and affordability once the support has ended.  Can the partner continue to pay for software licences for example or maintain equipment provided? In addition, it is critical to ensure the compatibility of any equipment provided and that any training is consistent with the existing SOPs, TTPs or legal system in place in the delivery location.

All stakeholders must clear on what the ultimate purpose is of the programme of support - both the provider of the proposed capacity enhancement and the beneficiary partner. A realistic timeframe is also key.  Capacity building programmes are change projects.  Not only does institutional change take time, but relationships and trust take time to develop – this can not be rushed, particularly in security institutions.  Initial conflict, systems or political economy analyses will help the development of a deeper understanding of power and organisational dynamics and the ecosystem of the delivery environment.  In such dynamic contexts understanding the interests of enablers, gatekeepers and spoilers is key.

When it comes to planning delivery, the notion of ‘accompaniment’ signals a partnership approach that goes beyond the transactional concept of training. If possible, embedded personnel working alongside local training assistants should adopt a train, mentor and transition approach, so learning is fully transitioned. Often active service donor personnel have limited availability and therefore a blended approach with contracted subject matter experts can help optimise results. Competent local staff provide both nuance and continuity and often a deep understanding of the partner organisations in which change is sought.  Ultimately capacity building will be evidenced in the communities in which security forces operate, so consider as part of the evaluation approach longitudinal measures of public perceptions of safety and security and of security providers to assist in measuring the impact of delivery. The notion of dual accountability is important here – we are accountable for tax-payer funds but also those communities impacted by the support provided.

Capacity building projects need to be managed in accordance with project management best practice, whether it be the development of Gannt charts as part of the project delivery plan, risk matrices or change logs.  Vital to success is a coherent and compliant procurement that considers a broad of contingencies, from export control issues (e.g. for PPE or simunition) to inventory and asset management and the risks of fraud in the supply chain.

When delivery commences, think through the incentives of partners and remember you are unlikely to be the only player offering support. What is your USP/value add?  How can entry points and trust be established – perhaps starting out with small wins such as language training.  How can concepts that may appear imposed from without be repackaged for local consumption?  We have done lots of work supporting donors’ goals in relation to gender mainstreaming and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda but reframed as female integration to achieve enhanced professionalism and operational effectiveness.  This is language more readily understand and speaks to competence not perceived foreign agendas.  

Engagement strategies must also include a strong element of humility and a willingness to listen.  Sharing experiences and achieving joint goals is very different to an assumption that one side has expertise to impart to the other.  The learning always goes both ways. Above all else be flexible to adapt the scope and range of activities.  Perhaps consider some sort of contingency or draw down funds to respond to emerging need/opportunity during the course of delivery.

Focused delivery is far more likely to deliver results than inch deep mile wide.  Working with a smaller number of key units/individuals can help generate catalytic effect.  Ensure that what is delivered is relevant to the partner – this perhaps sounds silly, but it is often not the case, with capacity building based on the availability of donor trainers in a particular subject rather than the needs of the beneficiary partner.  Once delivery commences, it is key to show this relevance quickly – so don’t focus on the theoretical and the classroom based.  In line with adult learning best practices, adopt a highly practical approach – explain, show and then get them to do.

And perhaps one final point.  Consider participation carefully.  You need to factor in absenteeism – not because the partner is lazy or indifferent, but because they are very likely to have other operational commitments/priorities or for example be losing income by attending training.  It is always worth explicitly stating any training prerequisites and the levels of competence and capability required amongst trainees at the outset.  There are of course risks of nepotism in trainee selection but it is just as likely that inadequate socialisation and consultation mean the benefits of putting the right people on the course of instruction have not been articulated.  Finally, beyond pre- and post-testing for knowledge, go back into units 3, 6 and 12 months on from capacity building to look at skill and knowledge fade, institutional barriers to adoption and indicators of positive change.  This process should drive the development of future cycles of capacity building but also show you are committed to a real partnership by engaging counterparts in the development of their own programmes of support.