P2

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

This completed form will provide detailed information about your proposal and will be used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of your project and inform funding decisions. It is very important you read the UK Aid Match Guidelines for Applicants and related documents before you complete this proposal form to ensure that you understand and take into account the relevant funding criteria.

How: You must submit a Microsoft Word version of your proposal and associated documents using the templates provided, by email, to UKAidMatch@dfid.gov.uk. The form should be completed using Arial font size 12. We do not require a hard copy.

When: All documentation must be received by the published bidding round deadlines. Documents received after the deadline will not be considered. What: You should submit the following documents: (all templates are on the UK Aid Match web page: www.gov.uk/uk-aid-match.

1. Narrative Proposal: Please use the form below, noting the following page limits:

▪ Sections 1 – 7 : Maximum of 15 (fifteen) A4 pages.For applications for projects which will work in more than 1 country, you may use an additional 2 pages for each additional country (ie. an application for working in 3 countries can be a maximum of 19 pages). ▪ Section 8 : Maximum of 3 (three) A4 pages per partner

NOTE: Please complete section 8 information for your own organisation AND for each partner organisation involved in delivering your project.

Please do not alter the formatting of the form and guidance notes. Proposals that exceed the page limits or that have amended formatting will not be considered.

For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country, you will need to include information about each country/region where the project context, beneficiaries, approach or the expected results are different. This is to enable DFID to assess your proposal within each of the contexts you plan to use UK Aid Match funds in.

2. Logical framework: All applicants must submit a full Logical Framework (Log-frame) and Activities Log. Please refer to the UK Aid Match Log-frame guidance and use the Excel log-frame template provided.

3. Project budget: All applicants must submit a project budget with the proposal using the template provided. Please refer to the UK Aid Match Guidance for Applicants, the budget guidance, and all tabs on the budget template. Please read all guidance notes and provide detailed budget notes to justify the budget figures.

For proposals to work in more than one country or in different regions within a country: Where there are substantial differences in the costs of the project in different countries or regions within a country, you need to include these in the budget and provide an explanation for the differences.

1

4. Organisational accounts: All applicants must provide a copy of their two most recent signed and audited (or examined) accounts.

5. Project organisational chart / organogram: All applicants must provide a project organisational chart or organogram which includes all the implementing partners and explains the relationships between them. Implementing partners are defined as those that manage project funds and play a prominent role in project management and delivery. The chart should also include other key stakeholders. (Please use your own format for this).

6. Project schedule or Gantt chart: All applicants must provide a project schedule or Gantt chart to show the scheduling of project activities (please use your own format for this).

7. Communications Plan: You will also need to complete a Communications Plan and submit this with your application. The plan is comprised of two parts (cover page and activity timetable).

Please complete the checklist provided in section 9 before submitting your proposal.

UK AID MATCH PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT

1.1 Lead organisation name Hope and Homes for Children

1.2 Contact person Name: Pascale CostelloPosition: Head of Grants PartnershipsEmail: Pascale.Costello@hopeandhomes.orgTel: 01722 790111

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT

2.1 Project title Regional action to reduce reliance on institutional care of children and fight child poverty in East and Southern Africa (ESA) through a capacity building approach.

2.2 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Rwanda and Kenya, Sudan, Uganda and Tanzania.

2.3 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

We will target 6 districts in Rwanda; Rubavu, Nyarugenge, Kicukiro, Gasabo, Gatsibo, Rusizi and build the capacity for roll out across 24 remaining districts nationally

2.4 Duration of grant request (in months)

36 months

2.5 Project start date (month and year)

01/04/2015

2

2.6 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£3,215,840

2.7 How much do you expect your appeal to raise ? What percentage is this of the total project/programme budget ?

£2,058,137

64%

2.8 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

Rwanda: £2,166,277Regional capacity building: £1,049,562

3.1 Which of the following Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area)

1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 1

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability

8. Develop a global partnership for development

None of the above (please explain below)

SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS

4.1 ACRONYMSFor words which you would normally use acronyms for, please write these words in full the first time you use them, followed by the acronym in brackets, and use the acronym after that. Where you feel that it would be useful to provide an explanation of any acronym, please add these here.

African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC)Active Family Support (AFS)Alternatives to Institutional Care (AIC)Better Care Network (BCN)Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)Community Development Networks (CDNs)Displaced Children and Orphaned Fund of USAID (DCOF)East and Southern Africa (ESA)Global Communities (GC)Government of Rwanda (GoR)

3

Hope and Homes for Children (HHC)Institutional care (IC)Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)Ministry of Family and Gender Promotion, Rwanda (MIGEPROF)National Commission for Children (NCC)Non governmental organisations (NGOs)United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)UN Guidelines on Alternative Care (UNGAC)

4.2 PROJECT SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief project summary including the overall change(s) that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. Please be clear and concise and avoid the use of jargon (This should relate to the outcome statement in the logframe).

This project will build capacity in ESA to reduce reliance on institutional care and fight child poverty. We will build the capacity of the social workforce in Rwanda to support over 38,512 children in family and community based care. We will forge partnerships in 5 countries including Rwanda, building the capacity of national partners to implement family strengthening and community based child protection in their own countries and to in turn build capacity within their local NGO network. We will capture the learning and evidence to empower stakeholders to drive regional reform.

4.3 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT)Describe the context for the proposed project, by considering the following questions. What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What are the causal factors leading to poverty and/or disadvantage? (If applicable) what gaps in service delivery have been identified and how has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Which specific groups/people do you expect to benefit? Why and how were these groups chosen? How does the proposal fit with national/regional development plans? How does it fit with activities of other development actors? Why has the particular project location(s) been selected and at this particular time? Please also refer to your response to section 3.1 (fit with MDGs) when answering this section.

Institutional care of children is a driver of poverty. It is associated with high levels of neglect and abuse, evidenced from as early as the 1890s (Chapin 1890, Bowlby 1940; Browne 2009). International analysis of growth data shows that children lose one month of linear growth for every three months spent in orphanages (Johnson, 2001, Nelson 2003). Neuroscience has provided conclusive evidence that the development of crucial brain functions in children under the age of three is significantly impaired by institutional care (Centre on the Developing Child, Harvard University, 2012). Institutional care isolates a child from their family and community, limiting opportunities for socialisation and protection. These factors, combined with the poor health outcomes associated with institutional care, reduce children’s ability to learn and successfully complete their education (Williamson, 2004). The poor educational outcomes associated with institutional care affect a child’s ability to gain employment as an adult and increases the likelihood that their own children will face difficulties in accessing and completing their education (Williamson 2004). There are millions of children confined to institutional care globally (estimates are unreliable but to give a sense of scale we use an approximation of 8 million estimated by the UN and cited in ‘Keeping Children out of Harmful Institutions’, Save the Children 2009). Its negative impact on children’s health and education means that institutionalisation is a key driver of the inter-generational transmission of poverty. Studies show that as many as 1 in 3 children who leave institutional care become homeless; one in five ends up with a criminal record, thereby entrenching their circumstances in poverty (Tobis and Davis 2000). As adults they are up to 50% more likely to face difficulties, which result in their own children being separated and confined to institutions.Poverty is also a driver of the institutionalisation of children (Richter and Norman, 2010; Browne et al

4

2005; 2006; Carter 2005; Williamson and Greenburg, 2009). Numerous studies in sub Saharan Africa show that financial strain is almost always present in cases of childhood vulnerability and family breakdown (Richter and Norman, 2010).Worldwide, at least four out of five children in institutional care are estimated to have one or both parents alive (Csasky, 2009) and with the right support could be supported to live in a family-based or family-like setting (Greenburg and Williamson, 2010). In sub Saharan Africa the notion of family includes extended networks of kin, increasing the capacity of such networks to care for children (Richter and Norman, 2010). Institutional care conversely is an imported option and has a “pulling effect” (MIGEPROF, 2012) – the presence of institutions creates demand within poor communities with parents placing their children in institutions with the belief that they will be better provided for.The reason why institutional care endures is in no small part a consequence of financial convenience. The larger the population of children in an institution the greater the fundraising opportunity particularly when private fundraising models based on child sponsorship are relied upon (Csaky, 2009). The increasing demand for volunteering opportunities in institutions perpetuates this further (Richter and Norman, 2010).This project will not only provide significant momentum on the ground for the reform of child protection systems in 5 African countries, but it will also generate an evidence base that will demonstrate the links between institutional care and child poverty, and why and how family strengthening and community based child protection is more cost effective. This evidence base will provide further traction for reform of child protection policy and practice, which we anticipate will, in time, be harnessed at the pan-African level.Why has the project location been chosen at this time? Despite significant progress in Rwanda towards achieving the MDGs, 45% of the population are poor and 24% extremely poor (DFID operational plan for Rwanda 2011 – 2015). Over 50% of the population are under 18 (UNICEF, 2012), circa 3,300 are growing up in institutions and we estimate that over 500,000 children are living in families at risk of breakdown (MIGEPROF, 2012). HHC is the leading implementing partner for the Strategy for National Child Care Reform (known here as the National Strategy) and in partnership with the GoR and UNICEF we are reforming the institutional based system to a family strengthening and community based system, free of institutions. The reform process has strong political commitment and is explicitly supported by a national government directive. It has high potential to be successful but it is vital that we capitalise on the current momentum to ensure that the goals of the National Strategy are achieved within the relatively short timeframe.This positive example provides an excellent platform to catalyse reform in the ESA region. The timing of this project takes advantage of an emerging trend for child protection system reform in the region. Evidence can already be seen of positive child protection reform and alternative care initiatives. As a forthcoming publication by the BCN states: “Recognizing this child welfare crisis, a number of countries in the region have begun to address these issues by implementing reform processes; specifically looking at issues of children at risk of separation from parents and children outside of family care.” Consultation with other strategic donors including Oak Foundation has highlighted that several governments in the region including Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia are prioritising alternative care. This is a result of calls to action from UNICEF, international donors and NGO's and a response to the increasing number of orphanages in these countries. Increasing professional awareness is evidenced by a range of regional initiatives including BCN’s recent inter-agency initiative, Africa Child Policy Forum’s international conference on ICA, the 2009 conference in Nairobi on Family-based Care, the Sub-Saharan Francophone African conference on Family Strengthening and Alternative Care in Dakar 2012, African Union Family Systems Meeting 2012, Launch of Moving Forward at ACERWC 21st session, Addis Ababa 2013; Eastern Africa Regional Conference on domestic adoption, Nairobi 2013, and Alternative Care Briefing of ACERWC, Ethiopia 2014. Kenya has developed and approved guidelines for alternative care. There is growing donor investment in child protection reform including USAID / DCOF and private foundations funding in multiple countries. The pre-conditions are therefore in place for HHC, with other key child protection stakeholders to catalyse reform.Which specific groups/people do you expect to benefit? What specific aspects of poverty is

5

the project aiming to address? The beneficiaries of this project will include children at risk of separation from their families, children transitioning out of institutions into families, NCC Social Workers and Psychologists, CDN members, professionals in 10 partner NGOs, government representatives and donors who are investing in the 5 target countries. The project will reduce child poverty by increasing knowledge of existing resources at community level, helping to create mechanisms for those resources to be allocated in a more effective way, and by helping communities avoid resorting to institutional care which leads to further deprivation, social exclusion and intergenerational transmission of poverty. At regional level, the project will help NGOs, government representatives and donors to understand and implement more effective ways of investing in children and their development.In Rwanda the project has been designed and will be implemented in close coordination with all key stakeholders in particular the GoR through the NCC and also with UNICEF, USAID and a range of local and international NGOs. It addresses the priorities identified jointly by the partners coordinating the National Strategy (NCC, UNICEF, Global Communities and HHC) which aims to ensure the closure of 33 institutions and placement of all 3,300 children and young adults into alternative family-based care. The body responsible for the National Strategy is the NCC.A specific priority of the implementation of the National Strategy is the establishment of CDNs to support the closure of institutions and strengthen the child protection system. This mechanism has been pioneered by HHC. CDNs are composed of people who directly or indirectly assist vulnerable children and families and include local leaders and representatives from community policing, church leaders, primary and secondary schools and health centres. A central role of the CDNs is to ensure appropriate care placement decisions for children entering the care system, a process known as gatekeeping. Administrative structures have been developed for the establishment of CDNs and government guidelines been approved for their formation. However there is a critical need to build local capacity to ensure they can be established and function effectively. This work is vital in helping families to build and address challenges associated with poverty, including health and education.And while there is emerging commitment in other African countries to transition to family-based child protection, the services required to fulfil this commitment and the capacity within the social workforce to manage them are yet to be developed. This gap is undermining the ability of families to successfully address the challenges associated with poverty.This project aims to address these gaps by building the capacity of the NCC social workforce in Rwanda to develop and coordinate CDNs, developing the capacity of national partner NGOs in 5 target countries to implement family strengthening and community child protection both directly and through their local NGO network and by capturing the evidence from this process to build the case for a transition from institutional care to family strengthening and community child protection across the region. At community level the project will be fully integrated with existing services and initiatives and will build on the tradition in Rwanda for community involvement and problem solving. The CDNs will coordinate and harness existing resources, skills, knowledge and opportunities to support the implementation of the National Strategy. The involvement of local stakeholders ensure that child protection and family-based care will be locally owned and implementedThe project is fully integrated with the work of key stakeholders to accelerate regional development of alternatives to institutional care. Initiatives led by organisations such as BCN, UNICEF and Save the Children are building capacity to advocate for change and influence national and regional priorities. However the lack of technical experience regarding the development alternatives to institutional care has been identified as one of the main barriers to progress. HHC is in a unique position to fill this gap by sharing the know-how that we have developed locally and internationally to build the capacity of national NGOs and through this help to catalyse regional efforts.At the systemic level this project also considers the degree to which the institutional system is sustained by private funding and the attractiveness of the orphanage model to donors. The funding of institutional care in Africa is one of the biggest barriers to reform. There is a lack of understanding among the private donor community regarding the damaging effects of institutions, the alternatives, and the improved economic returns from investment in family strengthening and community based child protection. A critical first step in overcoming this barrier is completing national assessments of

6

funding sources and expenditure on institutional care. Based on these findings the creation of an ‘Investing in Children Guide’ for private donors will be a key step forward. Furthermore the strengthening of evidence demonstrating the impact of child protection reform on child poverty is key to building the case for bi-lateral and multi-lateral support. The research generated from this project will build the case for child protection reform at the national and regional level.The regional capacity building will be implemented in partnership with BCN and selected national NGOs, drawing on their expertise and experience of the project context. They contribute extensive expertise and knowledge regarding children without adequate family care. Their recent establishment of an ESA office, and evolving research agenda in the region, is at the heart of establishing a well-equipped and knowledgeable community of practice in the region.

4.4 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES)Who will be the DIRECT beneficiaries of your project? Describe the direct beneficiary groups, and state how many people are expected to benefit, differentiating between male and female beneficiaries where possible, as well as other sub-groups.

DIRECT: a) Description of groups: Children from families at risk of breakdown in 6 target districts of Rwanda. Children transitioning from institutions into families/alternative families.CDN members: such as representatives of police, church, schools, health workers, etc.Government staff (social workers and psychologists).National partner NGO members (professionals).Professionals of local NGOs in 5 target countries

b) Number of beneficiaries: Total: 41,302:34,825 children from families at risk of breakdown from 6 districts in Rwanda;687 children transitioned from institutions in 6 target districts in Rwanda;3,000 children from families at risk of breakdown worked with by the national partners;2,250 members of CDNs in 6 target districts in Rwanda;60 NCC staff;180 community hub members;50 professionals of 10 national partner NGOs from 5 target countries;250 professionals of 50 local NGOs in 5 target countries.

Female (20,539) Male (20,763)

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project intervention and how many will benefit? Please describe the type(s) of indirect beneficiaries and then provide a total number.

7

INDIRECT: a) Description Children from families at risk in the remaining 24 districts in RwandaChildren transitioning from institutions in the remaining 24 districts in RwandaCDN members in the remaining 24 districts in RwandaGovernment and non-government representatives

b) Number Total: 68,300:57,600 children from families at risk worked with by 288 CDNs in remaining 24 districts of Rwanda;1,655 children transitioned from institutions in the remaining 24 districts in Rwanda9,000 CDN members in in the remaining 24 districts in Rwanda;45 state and non-state actors from the region taking part in the conference.

Female (37,047) Male (31, 253)

4.5 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTPlease describe the anticipated impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. What changes are anticipated for the beneficiary target groups identified in 4.4 (both direct and indirect beneficiaries) within the lifetime of the project?

The potential impact will be coordinated regional action in ESA which will reduce reliance on institutional care and fight child poverty. Plans will be in place in 5 countries within the region with national reach prioritising the transition from institutional care to family strengthening and community based child protection. Resources will be allocated to this transition. In Rwanda, by 2020 we estimate that over 500,000 children, who would otherwise be living in vulnerable families or institutional care will be will be supported by CDNs to grow up within family-based care with the opportunity to fulfil their potential. The project will support the delivery of the National Strategy which aims to replace the institutional system with family strengthening and community based child protection.Within the project lifetime the conditions for ensuring this impact will have been improved:1) In five countries across ESA, government representatives will have become increasingly aware of the benefits of reducing reliance on institutional care in their efforts to fight child poverty.2) Within the region there will be established and recognised models of family strengthening and community based child protection, available to the community of child protection professionals. There will be a body of expertise and technical capacity at professional and practitioner level. 50 national partners will benefit from training in the development of family strengthening and community based child protection services. The project will empower them to act collectively and individually to deliver child protection reform and better advocate for policies and investment to make this possible.3) In Rwanda, HHC will support the development of community based protection mechanisms and services in 6 districts through Community Hubs and CDN’s. We will work alongside NCC staff to recruit and train 2,250 members of the CDN committees and 180 Community Hub members. The CDN committee members will benefit from a better understanding of the needs of vulnerable families and of the resources available at community level. They will be connected to relevant stakeholders to allow cross-organisational collaboration enabling them to drive forward community led initiatives to fill gaps in services, and identify local solutions to strengthen families. The CDNs will benefit 24,000 children across the six districts. The services provided through Community Hubs,

8

child friendly community resource centres, will strengthen families and improve children’s health and wellbeing. In 2014 these pioneering services were recognised as an ‘exemplary initiative addressing child deprivation and vulnerability in Africa’ by the African Child Policy Forum who awarded HHC Rwanda the prestigious Larissa Award. The children benefitting from CDN and Community Hub Services fall into two groups: those reintegrated into families from institutions by NCC staff as part of the National Strategy (with HHC’s support) and those at risk of separation from their families due to poverty and vulnerability. Both groups will have access to family strengthening and community based child protection through the CDNs. For children transitioning out of institutions the CDNs will play a key role in helping to identify potential foster / adoptive placements and monitoring and supporting children after their move, including those reintegrated with their own families. Children at risk of separation will benefit from early identification, intervention to reduce poverty and vulnerability within their family and monitoring to ensure that the family’s stability. The impact on the wellbeing and life prospects of these groups of children will be transformational. Evidence shows that children growing up in families make better progress in their development, are more likely to benefit from education and are in turn better equipped to support themselves as adults, reducing poverty. Evaluation of our pilot institution closure in Rwanda found that children achieved dramatic improvements in academic achievement, wellbeing and health when transitioned into a family environment.4) 60 NCC social workers and psychologists will benefit from training provided by HHC in the development and management of CDNs and Community Hubs. This will lead to the creation of a national network of CDNs reaching 81,600 children across Rwanda.

4.6 DESIGN PROCESSDescribe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? How have the intended beneficiaries and other stakeholders been involved in the design?

The design of the project proposal has been led by HHC in collaboration with key stakeholders in Rwanda, including the GoR and NCC and those active in the region including the BCN and UNICEF. It is informed by HHC’s experience of child protection reform in 15 countries.In Rwanda the project design has been led by HHC Rwanda, in consultation with all stakeholders including children, parents and carers, the GoR, NCC, UNICEF and BCN. It builds on the findings and learning from BCN and UNICEF’s forthcoming country care profile. It also builds on progress achieved to date in national child protection reform in Rwanda, including the piloting of CDNs in two districts. The project design has been informed by three key pieces of work: The National Survey of Institutions for Children in Rwanda, carried out by HHC and MIGEPROF in 2012, a HHC consultation with 207 children and families and evidence gathering from our pilot project in Kicukiro District, which achieved the closure of the Mpore Pefa Institution in May 2012. The project responds to the repeated calls at Rwanda’s Annual Children’s Summit for families to be prioritised and for children in orphanages to be returned to families. The National Survey revealed that over 3,300 children were living in 33 institutions. The survey showed that poverty and inadequate mechanisms at community level to support families in crisis are primary driving factors for the placement of children into institutions. The survey confirmed the need for capacity building within the social care workforce to enable them to support children’s transition out of institutions and implement community based alternatives to institutional care. Our 2012 consultation with children and families included 207 children (98 male/109 female including those with disabilities) from all target groups i.e. children at risk, children in institutions and children in alternative care. The consultation confirmed our assessment of the role that poverty plays in the vulnerability of families and consequent institutionalisation of children. Most of the children reported that they are unhappy because of the socio-economic problems that their families face and highlighted food security and material needs as specific concerns. Subsequent community mapping in Kicukiro and Rubavu districts revealed that a lack of family support services and emergency support led to high levels of family breakdown and child abandonment. This evidence and our experience in the development of family strengthening

9

child protection systems in Rwanda played a vital role in influencing the development of the GoR’s National Strategy and implementation plan. The design of the CDNs draws directly from HHC’s programme delivery experience in Rwanda and has been formalised through collaborative planning with the members of the Programmes Coordination Team (who are responsible for guiding the implementation of the National Strategy). CDNs were successfully piloted in Kicukiro district during 2012 / 13 and later developed in Rubavu district. Members of the pilot CDNs were consulted and their key learnings captured within a protocol which will form the basis of the training curricula for the NCC social workers and psychologists. Our role in training the NCC social workforce is at the direct request of the NCC who recognised a lack of skills and capacity in the newly recruited staff.The regional capacity building element has been developed in close collaboration with key stakeholders in the ESA region: UNICEF, BCN, USAID and World Learning and with other relevant international organisations including Save The Children, International Rescue Committee and Terre des Hommes. The design follows models developed by us across different programme geographies. We have created demonstration projects in strategically targeted areas as a platform to catalyse regional child protection reform by developing best practice guidelines and training materials and providing technical assistance to other countries in the region. In 2013 we launched a pan-European advocacy and capacity building campaign ‘Opening Doors for Europe’s Children’, which is operating across 12 European countries calling on the EU and national governments to accelerate the transition from institutional to family-based care. The campaign is drawing together over 80 NGOs and integral to the approach is building the capacity of 12 lead NGOs to lead the campaign activities in each country and build the knowledge and expertise of the additional partners. A mid-term evaluation of the campaign results found that it is successfully operating at regional level, accelerating reform and helping to make available additional resources for investment in family based care. A significant outcome of the campaign is its role in securing deinstitutionalisation (DI) as one of the EU’s priorities for its €325 billion budget over the next seven years, which was approved in November 2013. Taking our learning as an organisation from the European context we will work with BCN in the sub Saharan context to build on their regional consultation with organisations and networks involved in family strengthening and community child protection reform. BCN has built strong relationship with key actors in the region through its membership to key regional platforms. BCN has joined the Pan African Child Protection Systems Strengthening platform and is an active member of the subgroup focusing on the ESA region and is an active member of the Regional Interagency Task Team on Children and AIDS (RIATT) and the EAC Inter-agency Working Group on Child Rights. Recently the sub group on care of this interagency (composed of BCN, Save the Children, ISS and SOS Children Villages) conducted a one day training of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC) on alternative care guidelines, the outcome of which was a request for country briefs on alternative care for countries. BCN is facilitating the collection of information for those countries. This regional project will also provide an opportunity for us to build the case for investing in child protection reform by evidencing both the funding currently directed into the institutional system in each country and the development dividends that child protection reform drives.

4.7 PROJECT APPROACHPlease provide details on the project approach proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 4.3. Why do you consider this approach to be the most effective way to achieve the project outcome? Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget.

This project is multi layered, working in partnership at community, national and regional level, as outlined in the log frame. The approach, which seeks to achieve significant scalable change, is informed by our successful experience of leading national and regional child protection reform.The following critical elements are required:1) Developing a successful model of intervention to address the problem and documenting and disseminating this

10

2) NGO capacity to deliver and replicate the model3) Political will and funding for transitionEach output will build on the previous and contribute to the achievement of the project outcome.1) We will deliver a national demonstration component, which will directly support children and families and strengthen the child protection system in Rwanda by building the capacity of and working alongside NCC social workers and psychologists to develop community based services and mechanisms in 6 districts in Rwanda including Community Hubs* and CDNs**. Our hands on work in Rwanda will specifically target 687 children residing in 11 institutions, across 6 target districts and will support their transition into communities and family based care. 571 families will be supported to reunite with the children returning from institutional care, including the recruitment and development of alternative families. Community Hub services (delivered through 4 existing and 2 new hubs) will benefit 10,825 families, through child and family focused services aiming to prevent children’s separation and support children to return to communities. The establishment of CDNs in the 6 target districts will enable 24,000 children to access family strengthening and alternative care services, to reduce poverty and enable them to live in safe and viable family units. This will lead to the creation of a national network of CDNs. The GoR has committed to recruiting and supporting the NCC staff. By building the capacity of the local workforce we will ensure long term sustainability and deliver excellent value for money.2) In partnership with the BCN we will forge partnerships with NGOs in the ESA region, identifying and working with 2 national NGO partners in each of the 5 target countries, inclusive of Rwanda, to increase their capacity to implement family strengthening and community child protection. These partners will be identified on the basis of having the necessary organisational capacity, reputation, networks and experience to play a catalytic role in child protection reform in their country. They will be trained and will have the opportunity to see alternative family care in action through exchange visits to Rwanda.3) We will then support these 10 national partners to identify and train a further 50 (5 for each partner) local NGOs in their respective countries and strengthen partnerships with their local and national authorities. Through this we will build a body of expertise and technical capacity at professional and practitioner level. This approach will multiply the impact of the training we provide to the national partners and in this way maximise value for money.4) Utilising our shared experiences we will develop relevant guidelines for family strengthening and community based interventions in the region which will be launched at a regional conference for relevant state and non state actors. These resources will be made available to the community of child protection professionals across the region enabling the dissemination of our learning and complementing the NGO capacity building described above.5) Commissioning the research developed through 1) – 4) which identifies and validates the mechanisms between strengthening family and community based child protection systems and reduction in child poverty in the ESA region and develops for guide for private donors (as a basis for shaping funding and social policy at national, regional and global policy). This evidence base will provide further traction for reform of child protection policy and practice, which we anticipate will, in time, be scaled up to the pan-African level.We envisage, given the scope of this project, that the maximum 36-month duration will be required to achieve the outcome based on the following key considerations:1) The current intermediate stage of children protection reform in Rwanda and the time required for the CDN model to be rolled out nationally by local professionals2) The high levels of expertise and know how of the BCN as our regional partner3) The significant and emerging interest in child protection reform with non-state and state actors (including strategic donors) in the regionAn alternative approach would be for HHC to lead the direct implementation of alternative family and community based care in all five countries. This would be a much more costly, with limited reach and reduced opportunities for in-country capacity building, limiting sustainability.*The following services will be provided to vulnerable children and families through Community Hubs:

11

1. Early Childhood Development (ECD) programme- education and day care services for pre-school children from vulnerable families. This includes the provision of a daily nutritious meal to reduce malnutrition and improve educational attainment2. Income Generation Activities (IGA)- an average of 200 families will join IGA groups around each hub where they will receive support to start income generating activities (i.e handicraft production) to raise families’ income and increase their self sufficiency3. Safe space/recreation activities- access to child protection services/counselling and recreational services.**The CDNs will provide the following interventions to vulnerable children and families in the local community, which will deliver positive benefits; reducing poverty and vulnerability.1. Preventing the breakdown of families through identification, targeted support and referral to other services: The CDNs will be trained in HHC’s model of Active Family Support (AFS); a good practice framework used to assess families' needs, strengths and potential and engage them in developing a support plan designed to deliver improvements across a range of wellbeing domains: living conditions, household economy, social relationships, health and education. The CDN will refer families to existing family strengthening services in the local community and provide additional support and/or develop solutions to fill the gaps in local provision, where specific needs are identified. This support might include food supplies, house repairs, counselling and access to income generation initiatives. The CDNs will be trained to respond to the specific needs of families including children affected by disability enabling equity in access. The length of the support is designed to achieve sustainable change whilst avoiding the family becoming dependent. Work with a family is concluded when the family is able to function independently within a sustainable system of formal and informal support.2. Seeking alternative family based care where separation of children from their families cannot be prevented: The CDNs will play an important role in the provision of alternative care by identifying potential foster families and alternative care options for children. The foster families identified will then be assessed, trained, accredited, matched and monitored by local professionals to ensure they have the appropriate competencies to care for the child. This will include the selection, training and monitoring of specialist foster families willing to support the most vulnerable children including those with disabilities. CDNs will help to coordinate resources at community level to ensure the alternative family care placement is sufficiently supported, monitored and reviewed on a regular basis.3. Supporting children’s reintegration into families from institutions: The reintegration of children will be led by the NCC social care workforce, with technical assistance and support from HHC. One of HHC’s core beliefs and practices is that no child will be left behind in an institution when it is being closed and the children transitioned out. This will include young adults who were placed in the institution as a child but who have never been assisted to move to independence. It also includes children with disabilities who are often placed in institutions with ‘typical’ children. The CDNs will play an important role in monitoring the family placements and mobilising community resources to provide additional support where needed.

4.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UPHow will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? How will costs of any posts or maintenance of infrastructure provided by the project be paid for after project funding finishes ? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through work done by others in the future.

Sustainability is inherent within every layer of the project design through the focus on capacity building at community, national and regional level. At community level, the CDN model will use existing resources in a more effective way.  Vulnerable families will have improved knowledge of the resources available and how to access them and community members involved in the CDNs (representing all relevant state and non-state agencies) will gain a better understanding of family’s needs and available resources.  The CDN mechanisms will enable cross-organisational collaboration, to drive forward community led initiatives to fill gaps in services, and identify local

12

solutions to strengthening families. Project beneficiaries will play a key role in sustainability e.g. through the formation of support groups where family members come together to share experiences, and collaborate on initiatives e.g. for income generation. This has already proved effective in our pilot project in Kicukiro district. The long term sustainability of the CDNs is secured through the involvement of local professionals, who will be responsible for developing and managing the national network. This national social care workforce comprises 60 staff (2 per district form the District Child Care and Protection Unit). Their salaries are currently funded by a grant from USAID and the GoR has committed to funding then once the USAID funding end. Building the capacity of these key staff has been identified by the GoR as a priority for the achievement of the National Strategy, and for the sustainability of the child protection system. At the request of the GoR, HHC has already played a key role in the provision of training to these staff (in 2013 we completed the first training programme to 28 social workers and psychologists in partnership with NCC, UNICEF and Tulane University). The capacity building to these key staff within the scope of this project will contribute to the sustainability of the CDNs and the strengthened child protection system in Rwanda after this project cycle ends.At national level in Rwanda, the project is fully integrated with national policy. It is complementary to the programmatic approaches of all key stakeholders. It addresses an area of need agreed with all key stakeholders including the GoR. CDNs are included in the National Strategy. The project is fully integrated with existing state structures and in full alignment with the GOR’s development goals.At regional level a capacity building approach has been identified as the best way to ensure that the outcome of the project is sustained. The 10 national NGO partners will be chosen on the basis of their ability to drive forward change and to scale up their work. The regional advocacy led by BCN will contribute significantly to our capacity building efforts and enable child protection reform in these five countries, and regionally, to be significantly scaled up in the future. By developing the argument for investment in alternatives to institutionalisation this project will encourage a reallocation of state and donor resources from institutional to community-based alternative services. It will create the conditions for Rwanda and ESA countries to access significant bi-lateral and multi-lateral funding for child protection reform which is increasingly coming on-stream from international donors for child protection reform.

4.9 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACYIf your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy objectives, please explain how they these objectives contribute to the achievement of the project's outcome and outputs? Please explain clearly why your project includes these elements, and what specific targets you have identified. Refer to the Guidance for Applicants for advice on this.

Capacity building, empowerment and advocacy objectives are at the core of this project and integral to the achievement of the outcome. HHC will directly support the development of CDNs in 6 districts in Rwanda working alongside NCC staff to build the capacity of 2,250 CDN members. Training will build their capacity for early identification of families at risk, the provision of active family support, foster care recruitment and monitoring and empower them to collaborate to identify and develop solutions to meet families’ needs, where existing services are not adequate. This will enable 24,000 children to access family strengthening and alternative care services in these districts, to reduce poverty and enable them to live in safe and viable family units. To enable the roll out of CDNs across Rwanda, we will build the capacity of 60 NCC social workers and psychologists through training on the CDN model (and through working alongside them to develop CDNs in the 6 target districts). This training will cover the development, ongoing support and management of the CDNs as well as the training that should be provided to all members. These staff will then roll out the CDN model to the remaining 24 districts of Rwanda by the end of the project, enabling 81,600 children and their families to benefit. Through the CDNs children and their families will be empowered to access family strengthening services, gain greater control over their lives and reduce poverty. They will have an increased awareness of the resources and support available to them and will be empowered to access them. Parents will be empowered to advocate for and to realise their right to

13

care for their children.In partnership with the BCN we will build alliances with NGOs in the region, identifying and working with a national NGO partner in 5 target countries (inclusive of HHC Rwanda) to increase their capacity to implement family strengthening and community based child protection services. Current partners who have undergone a due diligence process and signed an MoU with us to work with us in their respective countries include: Alternative Care Initiatives and ChildsiFoundation in Uganda, HHC Sudan and Shamaa in Sudan, AVSI and Ubumwe Community Centre in Rwanda, and Children in Family Focus in Kenya. In Tanzania we are in discussions with a number of potential partners and are going through the due diligence process with them. These partners share the HHC vision, and have the experience nationally of how an institution-free childcare system can improve children’s life chances and reduce poverty. The partners have an expertise in both targeted advocacy and professional implementation, at least in one or more aspect of childcare. The partners will be trained and have the opportunity to see alternative family care in action through exchange visits. With our support, these national partners will develop a country strategy tailored to address the specific challenges facing childcare reforms in their national context. They will then themselves become capacity builders; each identifying and training 5 local NGOs in their respective countries (50 in total) to implement alternative community and family based care as well as working to form a coalition of civil society and influencers to prioritise reform  The project will empower the network of NGOs in each country to coordinate actions to develop family strengthening alternatives to institutional care and better advocate for policies and investment to make this possible. The form of this action will vary from country to country depending on their capacity and the strength of government and NGO support. The country strategies will include an advocacy plan to address previously-identified weaknesses in the childcare and alternative family care systems as well as demonstrating change through the transformation of the childcare systems in particular districts.Building on our shared experience we will develop relevant guidelines for family strengthening and community based child protection interventions in the region which will be launched at a regional conference, securing the support of relevant state and non-state actors. Through this capacity building activity; the development of a study which validates the key mechanisms between family strengthening and community-based child protection systems and reduction in child poverty; and an ‘investing in children’ guide for private donors we will make a significant contribution to advocacy efforts led by the BCN.

4.10 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSIONHow are you addressing any barriers to inclusion of particular people/groups which exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDs and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account?

14

Children without adequate care and protection are commonly stigmatised and excluded, and have inequitable access to education, health, social protection and justice (West & Delap, 2012). Institutional care infringes the rights of children with intellectual or developmental disabilities to participate and removes the duty of society to accept the child. This project will significantly reduce the numbers of children marginalised in this way by supporting the transition from institutional to family based care and ensuring that families are supported to find a sustainable path out of poverty so that children can remain at home, within their communities, with appropriate care and protection.To equally benefit women and men, the program will identify gender-based constraints and develop strategies to respond to these gender-specific needs. The training provided by HHC will promote the importance of ensuring that interventions ensure the inclusion of women and girls, disabled people and other marginalised groups. We will maintain a good gender balance on our project team and ensuring equal representation of men and women will be a priority within the CDNs. Ensuring the inclusion of women will be a focus. In Rwanda women are more likely to be extremely poor than men, and have less means to raise their standard of living (DFID operational plan for Rwanda 2011 – 2015). Unwanted pregnancy, single parenthood, death of the mother and lack of support from fathers are common causes of institutionalisation. The CDNs and Community Hubs will provide vulnerable mothers with access to community based support allowing them to combat poverty and realise their right to bring up their children. Moving away from the ‘one size fits all solution’ of institutionalisation towards individualised support means that women will have increased control over decisions that will help them break the cycle of poverty. The project will impact positively on disabled children who are placed in institutions as a result of stigma, social exclusion and limited services at community level (Delap & Saunders et al, 2012). All training provided will cover disability related issues and the provision of inclusive community and family support for children with disabilities. The logframe will be updated by the middle of October to reflect targets addressing the needs of children with disabilities.

4.11 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM)Please demonstrate how you have determined that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money and that the proposed approach is the most cost effective way of addressing the identified problems.

The key elements of VFM are addressed as follows: Effectiveness: Family based care is proven to yield better outcomes for children and families than institutionalisation (Bowlby, 1969 , Glaser, 2000, Beckett et al 2002; Fisher et al 1997).  A cost comparison in East and Central Africa found residential care to be 10 times more expensive than community-based care (Swales 2006). For significant scalable change this project incorporates 3 critical interrelated elements (see para 1. Section 4.7). All aspects of the project design are based on proven interventions shown to be effective in a range of contexts. The design of the CDNs for example builds on learning from Rwanda and HHC’s other programmes e.g. Sudan and Bulgaria. The regional work is informed by our successful pan European capacity building campaign. Efficiency: The project will improve the conditions for coordinated regional action to ensure that children can grow up in families where their development, education and health outcomes will be significantly improved. The returns will be exponential as children develop into adults with increased capacity to support themselves and their families and make a positive social and economic contribution to society throughout their lifetimes. The project will be delivered in collaboration with regional stakeholders to accelerate regional development and avoid duplication of effort. It will achieve regional impact with minimal inputs by ensuring that models of family strengthening and community based child protection are documented, available to the community of professionals and that capacity is built to implement them. lt will achieve a multiplier effect across all layers of programme design, for example by building the capacity of the social care work force who will then develop CDN in 24 districts across Rwanda, and by training 10 national NGO partners who will then each identify and train a further 5 NGOs in their respective countries to drive child protection reform. By delivering improved health, education and economic outcomes for children (whose life expectancy may be as long as 63 years

15

(UNICEF statistics for Rwanda 2011) the project will continue to pay dividends far beyond the project timeframe. Economy: UK HHC’s global procurement policy meets sector norms and includes clarity on the specification of goods or services to be purchased, cost comparisons between suppliers and bulk purchasing where it will result in savings. Financial inputs will be monitored and analysed alongside project results.  The work in Rwanda is fully integrated with the GoR’s National Strategy. By working through existing community structures we will limit the number and value of inputs needed to achieve our outcomes. The GoR has committed its own financial resources to recruiting and supporting the NCC social workforce. Where-ever possible as we will use existing infrastructure and staff for project delivery thus minimising project inputs.  Equity, this project will ensure that the most marginalised members of society have access to family strengthening and child protection services including children who are currently held in institutions. The training provided by HHC to the NCC workforce and partner NGOs will promote the importance of ensuring that interventions are designed to ensure the inclusion of women and girls, disabled people and marginalised groups.

4.12 LESSONS LEARNEDWhat lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? Please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal. (please also note question 8.15 on evaluations)

HHC has been working to reform child protection systems for the last 20 years. Our experience has demonstrated critical element success (see para 1. Section 4.7). These elements form the basis of this project and when delivered in tandem will ensure its success.In terms of our model of intervention our experience in both Africa and CEE has shown us that prevention and gatekeeping is an essential component of child protection reform. In order to end the reliance on institutional system it is essential to prevent family breakdown by strengthening families and addressing the causes, including poverty, which lead to separation.We have also learnt that the involvement of community stakeholders in critical to ensuring effectiveness and sustainability of child protection reform. In Bulgaria for example the development of ‘coordination mechanisms’ which bring together childcare professionals and community stakeholders to review child protection cases has led to a step change in the way that cases are handled and an attitudinal change in the level of personal and institutional responsibility accepted for the problems faced by children and families. In Rwanda where strong traditions regarding community engagement exist and the wealth of local knowledge, resources and commitment at community level is high. Consultation and collaboration with and between stakeholders, such as local leaders and community health workers has proved a critical factor both in terms of the safe and sustainable placement of children from institutions into families and the development of robust, sustainable alternative care and prevention systems. CDNs fulfil the function of ensuring local collaboration for poverty reduction and family strengthening.We have also learnt that the creation and use of evidence to inform advocacy is critical for gaining political support for child protection reform. In Rwanda, HHC’s pilot child protection reform project (closure of Mpore Pefa Institution) was documented and the findings disseminated at government and professional level. Simultaneously, our National Survey of Children’s Institutions provided quantitative and qualitative evidence of the scale and characteristics of the problem, identifying the gaps and challenges. Together, this evidence catalysed the reform of the child protection system and resulted in the development of the National Strategy. Generating and documenting evidence from Rwanda and the region is therefore central to this project, as the means to influence decisions regarding institutional care and child protection.The learning and recommendations from our mid-term review of our regional advocacy campaign in Europe ‘Opening Doors’ has informed the design of our regional plans in Africa. For example the review recommended the provision of clear guidelines to national partners to help them identify and recruit local NGOs with the appropriate skills and capacity. This recommendation will be reflected in the plan for the regional work in Africa.

16

4.13 ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGEWhat are the opportunities and the risks of the project in relation to environmental sustainability and climate change ? Please specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the project is likely to have on the environment and climate change. Where relevant, please also specify what impact the environment and climate change are likely to have on the project. In each case, what steps have you taken to assess any potential impact?  Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative impacts, as well as how it will make use of opportunities to increase the positive impacts.

Environmental and climate change is not expected to significantly impact on the success of the project. However the University of Oxford investigations, funded by DfID, does predict that the Rwandan climate may become warmer and wetter over the next 50+ years. By supporting the development of cohesive communities, able to identify and support vulnerable children and families, this project may bring additional benefits if environmental or climatic change does lead to challenges such as irregular flooding and drought.

SECTION 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENTPlease outline the management arrangements for this project. This should include:

• A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. This should refer to the separate project organogram, which is required as part of your proposal documentation.

• A clear description of the added value of the each organisation within the project.• An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type,

skills).

HHC UK and HHC Rwanda are both part of the same global organisation. For the purposes of this form we have split them to show the breakdown of responsibilities, staffing and budget allocations. The strategic oversight for the project sits with our Director of Programmes and Global Advocacy who is part of the HHC UK Management team. The responsibility for the regional capacity building project; for ensuring unity and progress across all project elements in Rwanda; and for the achievement of all programme deliverables will sit with the Regional Operations Director who will be supported by the Regional Capacity Building Manager and Regional Advocacy Manager. These new posts will be based out of our office in Rwanda but are listed under HHC UK because of their cross border responsibilities. As a unified project team these roles will have overall responsibility for the delivery of this project.HHC will bring 20 years of experience in the management of child protection reform across 15 countries and contribute extensive experience of strategic programme management and national and regional training and capacity building. They will bring international experience to bear, including cross-fertilisation of learning, best practice and innovation. HHC UK will maintain close working relationships with the Rwanda country office and provide project leadership to ensure smooth programme management. HHC UK will monitor project progress, challenges and risks through regular communication, financial and narrative progress reports and country visits.HHC UK’s role will include: First-line management oversight, strategic and programme planning, capacity building, technical support, monitoring and evaluation, financial managementand primary liaison with DFID. This project will involve the following staff:Director of Programmes and Global Advocacy (0.1 FTE) skills: Extensive strategic programme management experience and experience of advocacy and policy work at a senior level.Head of Programme Development (0.5 FTE) skills: Extensive programme management, project management and resource management experience in an African context.

17

M&E Co-ordinator (0.1 FTE) skills: Experience of developing user-friendly M&E systems in an international development settingFinance Manager (0.05 FTE) skills: day to day financial management of projectAs explained above the following posts will be responsible for the regional capacity building project, and are listed under HHC UK for budgetary and administrative purposesRegional Operational Director (0.7 FTE) skills: large scale programme management, strategic planning, building regional alliances.Regional Capacity Building Manager (0.8 FTE) skills: development and delivery of training and capacity building activity, partnership development.Regional Advocacy Manager (0.8 FTE) skills: policy, advocacy and communications.Programmes Information Officer (0.1 FTE) skills: support to project team

HHC RwandaHHC’s Rwanda’s primary emphasis is with the national element of this project but they will also have input into the regional capacity building project. HHC Rwanda brings extensive experience of programme implementation, project management, capacity building and advocacy. The Rwanda National Director will be responsible for leading national staff and the Rwanda element. Project activities will be carried out by a range of national and regional staff, as shown in the organogram.HHC Rwanda’s responsibilities will includeTraining NCC social workers and psychologists and CDN members, gathering data from national and regional component to evidence for the need for investment in community and family based care in the region, providing regular progress and financial reports. The project will involve the following staff:Rwanda National Director (0.6 FTE) skills: national programme management and implementation, resource management.Head of Programmes (0.75 FTE) skills: programmes implementation and quality assurance.Head of Support Services (0.7 FTE) skills: resource management (financial and HR).Head of Advocacy and Capacity Building (0.75 FTE) skills: advocacy, policy, communications and partnership development.Monitoring and Evaluation Manager (0.8 FTE) skills: M&E management, data quality, outcome-level analysis and reporting, capacity building.Capacity Building Officer (0.8 FTE) skills: training and capacity building.3 x District Project Managers (3 (1 x 3) FTE) skills: stakeholder management, partnership management, project coordination, technical assistance.5 x Social Workers (5 (1 x 5) FTE) skills: direct work with children and families, projectimplementation, training.5 x Psychologists (5 (1 x 5) FTE) skills: direct work with children and families, project implementation, training.Finance Officer (0.7 FTE) skills: recording and managing financial information.Procurement Officer (0.7 FTE) skills: logistics and procurement.5 x Drivers (5 (1 x 5) FTE) skills: transportation.Regional Trainer (0.8 FTE) skills: training and capacity building.Regional M&E Manager (0.7 FTE) skills: M&E management, data quality, outcome-level analysis and reporting, capacity building.

5.2 NEW SYSTEMS, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND/OR STAFFINGPlease outline any new systems, infrastructure, and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

18

In order to deliver this regional project HHC will strengthen its capacity at regional level. This will include five new posts; at regional level the Regional Director, Regional Capacity Building Manager, Regional M&E Manager, Regional Trainer and at national level a Monitoring and Evaluation Manager. The Regional Director will have overall responsibility for the project implementation as outlined in 5.1 A new post is required because working at regional level will require dedicated leadership capacity. The Regional Capacity Building Manager will be responsible for leading the regional capacity building project including the identification and assessment of national NGO partners and work with the Regional Trainer on the delivery of training in the implementation of alternative family based care. These new post are required due to the level of input needed to deliver capacity and training building across multiple countries. The Regional M&E Manager and the Monitoring and Evaluation Manager (Rwanda focus) are responsible for M&E management of the project data quality, outcome-level analysis and reporting, and capacity building. We do not anticipate that significant additional systems or infrastructure will be required as the regional project will make use of HHC’s existing infrastructure and systems in Rwanda.

5.3 COLLABORATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTORSHow will you coordinate project implementation with other development actors and ensure no duplication of effort (including with other DFID funded activities) ? How will you work with local/national government and private sector providers ?

Our main strategic partners are NCC and the BCN who have confirmed their commitment to this project. We have been working closely with MIGEPROF and the recently established NCC for four years to build pool resources for child protection reform. NCC’s role is to ensure the coordination of promotion and protection of children’s rights interventions in Rwanda. Specifically; they are responsible for recruiting and retaining the professionals who will be responsible for scaling up the CDNs, for facilitating work with local authorities and other stakeholders and for developing regulations, mechanisms and guidelines in support of the child protection reform. We have a MoU with NCC, which incorporates capacity building for the NCC social workforce. This project will be implemented through ongoing coordination with the PCT which involves NCC, UNICEF, HHC and Global Communities and is used to coordinate the implementation of all initiatives within the National Strategy and avoid any duplication of effort or structures. We will work with the targeted district authorities to ensure local ownership, contribution and sustainability. The GoR will be required to sustain the social workforce, develop national guidelines for CDNs, prevention mechanisms and alternative care systems, and support research among other activities. UNICEF is currently a strategic and collaborative partner. This will be strengthened and extended through this project. We will work closely with UNICEF, particularly with regard to the capacity building for the NCC social workforce, as they funded the initial phases of the training. Collaboration with other NGOs including Save the Children, International Rescue Committee and World Relief will be maintained through information exchange to coordinate our actions, avoid duplication and provide mutual support and benefit, based on the skills, resources and initiatives of each NGO. We are actively engaged in the Rwanda Civil Society Child Rights Coalition “Umwana ku Isonga” and will continue to collaborate, and maximise project impact, through this forum. BCN will contribute their existing research and mapping of child protection system reform and potential NGO partners in the region to enable joint selection of the countries to be involved in this initiative. They will advise on the Terms of Reference for the research elements of this project, co-publish at least one research publication with us, and be involved in the regional conference. They will also contribute to regional training and capacity building as appropriate.

SECTION 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNINGThis section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget.

6.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and approaches are you intending to use? What training is required for partners to monitor and

19

evaluate the project?

HHC is committed to build an effective M&E system to maximise the project’s effectiveness and impact. The logical framework will be fully integrated in the M&E system. Protocols for the indicators provided within the logical framework will be set up to provide details such as what is to be measured, how and by whom, and how the collected data will be analysed. These protocols will be at the heart of the M&E system and will make it operational. The indicators will capture data provided by the HHC project team, local stakeholders and national partners. Data will be disaggregated by gender. The project intends to use HHC custom designed measurement tools that will be integrated into the programme’s routine. Data collection and storage processes and mechanisms will be set up and procedures for on-going training for staff involved in collecting and quality checking data will be established. Regular, accurate, monthly/quarterly project performance reports will be provided to HHC UK. The project team, as well as local stakeholders and national partners, will require training/support on: setting up and use of tools for data collection, setting up user friendly data storage formats, aggregating and analysing collected data/information and producing monthly/quarterly performance reports. Baseline and Evaluation: In Rwanda HHC and NCC have already collected key baseline data on the volume and quality of alternative care provision, as well as a mapping and needs assessment of the child protection system in the districts, so a full evaluation will not be conducted at the start of the program. This baseline data will provide a basis for planning program interventions and a benchmark for measuring outcomes. At regional level, once the national partners are selected and consulted, an external assessor will be identified and employed to undertake assessments of funding sources and expenditure on institutional care in 3 of the 5 target countries, illustrative for the region. They will produce a report on the findings of the assessment that will be shared with relevant stakeholders and the wider public. A longitudinal study of linkages between alternative care for children and poverty reduction will be carried out in cooperation with a research partner that will be identified and selected at the start of the project. A mid-term and end of project evaluation will be conducted to measure programme outcomes and distil lessons learned. Results will be disseminated widely and shared with all relevant stakeholders. Monitoring will be a key component of program implementation and key to understanding program coverage and access. Standardized data from CDNs and national partners will be collected on a routine and timely basis and will include activities (interventions and services, such as support to families at risk, training for local NGOs, etc) and outputs (immediate results, such as number of children reached, local NGO professionals trained, etc). HHC has a set of tested monitoring tools used under the Rwanda USAID/Higa Ubeho program to track health, economic development, education, food security and nutrition for participating households. The program will build the capacity of CDNs to adapt and use these tools to monitor service quality and provide feedback that improves services. Feedback meetings with CDNs and national partners will be organised on a quarterly basis to discuss challenges, agree the course of action to address obstacles and fully utilise linkages with other programs. Other ongoing monitoring mechanisms to be used include work plans, quarterly meetings to review program data to ensure that the project is on track, field visits, annual reports. Data Quality and Management System: A database that tracks data received from CDNs and national partners will be developed. Since much of the data will be collected by partners, we will establish systems that routinely verify the accuracy of data submitted. To ensure data quality, the M&E team will: Conduct verification visits to ensure that quantitative data is of reasonable quality in line with established standards; Provide oversight and technical assistance to assure integrity of information; Review data collection, maintenance, and processing procedures after every quarter to ensure that practices are consistently applied and provide adequate information. Monitoring and Evaluation Roles: The Regional Operational Director, Regional M&E Manager and M&E Manager will be in charge of overall M&E management, data quality, outcome-level analysis and reporting. The M&E manager, supported by the district project managers, will provide technical assistance to CDNs and national partners who will be trained in data collection and reporting. Technical assistance from HHC’s headquarters will be provided with start-up activities including refining and rolling out the M&E system and design or adaptation of tools and processes.

20

6.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please ensure there is provision for baseline and on-going data collection and a final independent evaluation. If you think there is a case for undertaking an independent mid term review of the project (eg. if the project is testing a new approach, or working in a particularly difficult or sensitive context, or is high value), please include costs for this in your budget.

We recognise that M&E is vital to a successful project and to disseminating learning. In order to do this to the level we require we will employ two new members of staff (Regional M&E manager and M&E Manager (Rwanda focus) who will spend 70% of their time developing M&E systems for the project. They will be supported by both the UK Head of Programmes Development and the UK M&E Coordinator to achieve this. We will undertake both mid-term and final evaluations costing £10,500 and £15,700 respectively. We will use the external evaluation of the project to learn lessons that we can use to accelerate the development of family strengthening initiatives and of alternatives to institutional care and help catalyse regional efforts through enhanced capacity at national level.

6.3 Please explain how the learning from this fund will be incorporated into your organisation and disseminated, and to whom this information will be targeted (e.g. project stakeholders and others outside of the project). If you have specific ideas for key learning questions to be answered through the implementation of this project, please state them here.

This project aims to contribute to the implementation of the national strategy of the GoR and address priorities such as gatekeeping, post reintegration support and development of the national social workforce. It will strengthen national initiatives and contribute to maintaining the pace of national reform. The evidence gathered through the project in Rwanda will be documented and will serve as the basis of training materials and guidelines that will be disseminated to the national NGO partners from the 5 target countries and made available to practitioners and professionals in the region, as well as government representatives, via 2 conferences organised within the project, but also via web based publications (HHC website). The learnings from the project will bring added value to efforts in the ESA region to accelerate the development of family strengthening initiatives and of alternatives to institutional care where the lack of know-how has been identified as one of the main barriers to progress. The learnings from the project will place HHC in a unique position to share the knowledge developed locally and internationally and help catalyse regional efforts through enhanced capacity at national level. A key learning question to be answered through this project is the extent to which alternatives to institutional care lead to wider development dividends. This will be explored through national assessments of funding sources and expenditure on institutional care in 3 target countries in the region and a longitudinal study that will look at the linkages between alternative care for children and poverty reduction.

SECTION 7: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION

7.1 How does your organisation identify and manage risks associated with the delivery of a project? Give examples of the main risks associated with your proposed project and how you will manage them.

HHC’s risk management policy is set by our Board of Trustees, applicable across all staff and contractors and embedded in management and operations processes. Risk management is reviewed at a strategic level every two to five years alongside each strategic review. Operational risks are assessed and reviewed annually. Project level risks are assessed at the start of each project and then regularly throughout the project lifecycle. HHC distinguishes between internal and external risks. Internal risks are defined as those within our capability to shape and influence and are kept to a minimum through careful management of our organisation. External risks are those not within our capability to influence such as changing government policies or changing security

21

situations. All of these risks are monitored carefully and mitigation strategies put in place as and when appropriate. Risks are identified at all levels - from project staff, to management group, Chief Executive and Senior Management team, CEO and Board of Trustees. A risk management register is used to monitor and evaluate risks and is reviewed quarterly. As an organisation, four basic strategies are applied to manage an identified risk: 1) Management or mitigation of the risk 2) transferring the financial consequences to third parties or sharing it usually through insurance or outsourcing 3) avoiding the activity giving rise to the risk completely 4) assessing it as a risk that cannot be avoided if the activity is to continue and taking steps to cover the risk such as an insurance policy that carries higher level of voluntary excess to mitigate a core activity that carries a risk. Examples of risks associated with this project:

Child protection system reform does not remain on the political agenda / Change of personnel at District or Ministry level in Rwanda: We have a commitment from the GOR and continue to work in close partnership to deliver initiatives, ensuring the GOR is fully supported in implementing its agenda.

Delays with recruitment of new cohort of social workers: We have an MoU with NCC programmes. The work of HHC is well known and respected at District and Ministerial level.

Consensus not reached between the 5 national partners for the development of the alternatives to institutional care guidelines: Flexibility has been built into the project design to allow us to respond to delays accordingly and adjust the speed or extend the time frame of our programme

The updated Risk Matrix is used as a risk management tool at the regional level where the named risks are reviewed at quarterly meetings in Kigali but HHC's Security Review committee also reviews the risks as part of it's regular work, every six weeks. Issues which need attention are forwarded to the SMT for action. The updates risk matrix will be sent in October with the first report.

The demonstration work in Rwanda will enable other national partners will see the value in replicating this model. HHC will support state partners to develop a set of tools and guidelines for the transition from institutional to family based care.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF APPLICANT ORGANISATION AND ALL IMPLEMENTING PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for your organisation AND for each implementation partner

8.1 Name of Organisation Hope and Homes for Children

8.2 Address East Clyffe, Salisbury, Wiltshire, SP3 4LZ

8.3 Web Site www.hopeandhomes.org

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

1089490

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): £7,833,452Income (£ equivalent): £7,833,452Exchange rate: n/aStart/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From:01/01/2013To: 31/12/2013

22

8.6 Number of existing staff 37

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 0.85 FTE

New staff n/a

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) x Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO)

Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

Responsibilities: first-line management oversight, strategic programme planning skills, coordinating and delivering the regional capacity building project, technical support, monitoring and evaluation support, financial management of the project. primary liaison with DFID. We have not shown the percentage of budget allocated to each partner because of the degree of interdependency between them.

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). Please include details of any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

HHC is a leading organisation in high quality child protection reform. Its model of change is recognised as best practice by the World Health Organisation and UNICEF. For the past 20 years, HHC has transformed child protection systems through direct interventions, capacity building and advocacy in 15 countries and built regional capacity to take a cohesive approach in lobbying for, and shaping child protection policy. In Romania we have contributed to the reduction of children in institutional care from over 100,000 in 1989 to only 9,000 today and galvanised government commitment to close all remaining institutions by 2020. We have played a leading role in the systemic reform of the child protection system in Bulgaria, leading the closure of 9 institutions for children under 3 and setting up coordination mechanisms at district level to involve decision-makers, community groups and families in the resolution of child protection cases. Our pan-African experience has been developed in Rwanda, Sudan, South Africa, Sierra Leone and Eritrea. In Sudan, HHC successfully piloted an adoption and fostering system; officially adopted in 2011 in Sudan’s National Policy for Children without Parental Care – a policy HHC helped develop and is now implementing country-wide. In Rwanda, HHC UK provided strategic direction for the first institution closure in the country. At the invitation of the GoR we are the leading implementing partner for the National Strategy. HHC’s AFS model has been developed and piloted across Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan and Rwanda. The approach has been recognised by the BCN in a forthcoming publication: Making the Best Choices for the Care of Children: The role of gatekeeping in

23

strengthening family-based care and reforming care systems”. Better Care Network Working Paper Series, 2014. HHC’s experience of capacity building extends across all countries where we have worked and includes childcare professionals, social service managers, government representatives, NGOs and volunteers. As an indication of scale we train circa 3,400 social workers per year. Over the last five years alone this is estimated to have benefited more than three quarters of a million children. We have strong experience in building the capacity of trans-national partners. In Europe, in partnership with child rights network organisation Eurochild, we are leading a pan European campaign, building the capacity of over 80 NGOs across 12 countries, to call for EU and national commitment to child protection reform. This has led to a number of breakthroughs, most significantly, the inclusion of child protection reform as a priority for the use of the European Social and European Regional Development Funds. HHC’s extensive experience of developing family strengthening services and community based child protection, our longstanding working relationships with government, donor and civil society stakeholders and experience of capacity building confirms our strategic advantage in playing a leading role in child protection system strengthening in Rwanda and the region.

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

Recent major grants include:Funder Purpose Amount Time periodAbsolute Return For Kids (ARK) Six institution closures; helping to create the conditions for the closure of all institutions 3 grants £6,813,000June 2008 to January 2015Breadsticks Foundation Child protection reform in Rwanda, South Africa and Sudan 2 grants £1,200,000 January 2009 to December 2014DFID Development of alternative family care in 9 states in Sudan; supporting child participation in rebuilding communities affected by war 2 grants £989,000 April 2005 to December 2015European Social Fund Supporting single parents in Romania to prevent child separation £2,310,000 December 2010 to November 2013Oak Foundation Prevention and re-integration in Bulgaria; prevention in Moldova. £365,000 January 2012 to December 2013SJP Foundation Reform of child protection systems in Romania and Ukraine 2 grants £1,505,000 January 2009 to December 2013

8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

24

HHC takes every possible measure to prevent abuse. Our child protection policy, reviewed and updated in 2010, lays down procedures to be adopted by everyone working for or with HHC to ensure that children with whom HHC comes into contact, either directly or indirectly, are safeguarded from abuse. The policy has been approved by the Board of Trustees and applies to all HHC staff (including Trustees, all UK-based, UK-appointed and country office staff), as well as volunteers and other representatives, including partner organisations. HHC has an overall Child Protection Officer and a key person responsible for child protection in each country programme. Each country programme conducts an annual child protection review, develops an annual child protection plan and produces quarterly child protection reports. Everyone involved with HHC knows what to do in the event of a child protection incident, ensuring a prompt and appropriate response: serious child protection issues are immediately escalated to the Child Protection Officer in the UK whilst other child protection issues are addressed locally and included in quarterly reports to HHC along with the outcomes of their interventions. All HHC staff are trained in Child Protection. In 2013 we developed a core child protection training module that forms the basis of all internal and external child protection training. We believe that it is important to work in partnership with children and their parents/carers, to ensure that children are protected from abuse and to equip them to be active agents of their own protection. During 2014 we are conducting a child protection policy and practice review and will make further improvements based on the outcomes.

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How was the fraud detected ? What action did your organisation take in response ? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

We have not experienced any fraudulent activity within the last 5 years. We minimise the risk of fraud activity by: identifying fraud on the organisational risk register; implementing strong financial controls systems which are reviewed by external auditors and internal control review exercises,; focussing on control principles such as segregation of duties, reconciliation and tiered authority and signature levels; ensuring accounting records are complete and accurate e.g. keeping original invoices and receipts; checking that financial controls are not overridden, particularly regarding cheque signing, during staff holidays; controlling access to assets and systems using secure logins and passwords; reminding staff, volunteers and Trustees of their responsibilities for fraud prevention and detection; having a whistleblowing policy for reporting fraud; having a Major Incidence Response Plan which covers fraud.

8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: Please provide brief details of any due diligence assessments of the organisation conducted on behalf of DFID or other donors within the past 5 years. Please include date, organisation responsible for the assessment, brief comments, and a link to the assessment, if available.

On 31 August 2012 a Pre-Grant Due Diligence Assessment was conducted by KPMG on behalf of DFID in relation to GPAF IMP-074. The executive summary stated that ‘No critical or high priority financial or operating weaknesses were observed during our assessment’.

8.15 EVALUATION: Please provide details of any independent evaluations of the organisations work that are relevant to the project proposal. Are these published? Can they be shared with DFID?

25

We have a range of internal evaluations on specific programme geographies, demonstrating the effectiveness of our models of intervention, including a review of HHC’s AFS programme in Bosnia and Herzegovina “Preventing the separation of children from their families in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (2010) and a longitudinal study on the impact of children’s reintegration into families on their development. Our ability to deliver a regional capacity building project is demonstrated by an independent mid-term review of the ‘Opening Doors’ campaign conducted in Jan 2014 by Chris Stalker. The conclusion stated that ‘the Opening Doors campaign is contextually relevant, is being Implemented efficiently, is demonstrating increasing effectiveness and representing value for money for both partners and the donor’. Our ability to develop alternative family care and build capacity is demonstrated by a progress report for GPAF-IMP-074 conducted by Triple Line Consulting Dec 2013: The key results are positive and clearly stated. It is encouraging to see changes happening at the levels of both policy and practice. Buy-in by states and ministers is particularly important as a signal of changing attitudes towards unmarried mothers and their children. In most aspects of the project, progress appears to be strongest in Khartoum but significant steps have also been taken in engagement and developing ownership in Gazira and White Nile’. Both reports available on request.

8.1 Name of Organisation HHC Rwanda

8.2 Address HHC Rwanda, Kigali, Gasabo District, Nyarutarama Road

corner

8.3 Web Site n/a

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

No.27/DGI&E/12

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): RWF 764,500,722Income (£ equivalent): £727,242Exchange rate: 1051Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/01/2013To: 31/12/2013

8.6 Number of existing staff 28

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 23.80 FTE

New staff 3.80 FTE

8.8 Organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) x Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO)

Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

26

8.9 A) Summary of expected roles and responsibilities, ANDB) Amount (and percentage) of project budget allocated to this partner

Responsibilities: Training NCC social workers and psychologists to develop and manage CDNs in Rwanda, supporting and working with NCC staff to train CDN committee members in 5 districts in Rwanda, Gathering data from national and regional component to evidence for the need for investment in community and family based care in the region, providing regular progress and financial reports. We are unable to show the percentage of budget allocated to each partner because of the degree of interdependency between them.

8.10 EXPERIENCE: Please outline this organisation's experience in relation to its roles and responsibilities on this project (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage). Please include details of any external evaluations of this organisation’s work (relevant to the proposed project) which have been completed and whether they are available.

In Rwanda, HHC is at the forefront of child protection system reform. Since 200 we developed and demonstrated a range of appropriate and innovative models in Rwanda including Community Hubs, CDNs and ACTIVE Family Support which is documented as promising practice in forthcoming publication, “Making the Best Choices for the Care of Children: The role of gatekeeping in strengthening family-based care and reforming care systems”. Better Care Network Working Paper Series, 2014. Through advocacy, training and capacity building we have changed attitudes and built the capacity of key stakeholders including MIGEPROF, NCC, Ministry of Local Government, Ministry of Justice and other government bodies as well as NGOs, Faith Based Organisations, media practitioners and institution managers. Capacity building of both national and international decision-makers and community-based structures is at the heart of our approach. To date, we have provided training and capacity building to 2,309 individuals including 1,442 state employed staff, including government staff (sector officials, district officials, province officials, police staff, national women’s council, health centres staff, NCC staff, etc); 413 volunteers, 148 institutions staff (directors and direct care staff), 116 foster carers and190 NGO staff.Our programme in Rwanda aims to shift the balance between institutional to family-based care. In partnership with MIGEPROF, HHC closed the first institution in Rwanda – the Mpore Pefa institution in Kigali - in May 2012. We piloted community based family support services to stop the flow of children into the institution (supporting over 500 vulnerable families), developed a range of prevention and alternative care services and provided family based care for all 51 children living in the institution. We also partnered with the GOR to conduct a national survey of institutions in December 2011 which revealed that over 3,300 children were living in 33 institutions. HHC provided both the evidence base and model which catalysed the development and approval of GoR’s Strategy for National Child Care Reform in 2012. (This is independently verified in a forthcoming publication; Keshavarzian, G. & Bunkers, K. (2013) (in draft/unpublished). The strategy prioritises the closure of institutions and the development of family strengthening services as an entry point to building sustainable child protection systems. At the invitation of the GOR we are the leading implementing partner for the National Strategy. Our programme is underpinned by a MoU with MIGEPROF. We have a strong track record of partnership with the GoR and UNICEF, sitting alongside them and one other INGO on the Programme Coordination Team which is driving the implementation of the National Strategy.Our pilot project in Rwanda is seen as a best practice example of alternative care and child protection system strengthening in Africa, attracting attention from NGOs, governments and donors. We have strong relationships with the BCN and UNICEF, and have been invited to collaborate with them on regional initiatives. Our understanding of different country contexts has been further informed by research and exchange, including investigation into child protection system reform in several countries and involvement in numerous regional conferences and initiatives. We have developed strong relationships with national and regional stakeholder, sharing expertise to

27

strengthen the quality of alternative care initiatives in the region. For example we have supported thre International Rescue Committee in the development of their DI programme in Burundi and provided training to NGOs in Uganda who are spearheading alternative care. We have presented at various professional forums e.g. 2012 Dakar conference on Alternative Care in Francophone Africa, the Global Social Welfare Workforce Alliance seminar series, and OAK Africa partners meeting in 2014.

8.11 FUND MANAGEMENT: Please provide a brief summary of this organisation's recent fund management history. Please include source of funds, purpose, amount and time period covered.

HHC Rwanda has experience of managing and reporting on large funds. Recent grants include:Source Amount Purpose Time Period  £'000USAID/DCOF and World Learning (SPANS/GSM RFA #9) as sub awardee in partnership with CHF International 425 To reintegrate children living in institutions in two districts of Rwanda into families and prevent institutionalisation through development of alternative care, with significant focus on capacity building of families, communities and professionals and childcare systems. May 13- Apr 15UNICEF - Rwanda 150 To build the capacity of Rwandan sub-national social workforce. Jun 13- Feb 14

8.12 CHILD PROTECTION (for projects working with children and youth (0-18 years) only)How does this organisation ensure that children and young people are kept safe? Please describe any plans to improve the organisation's child protection policies and procedures for the implementation of this project.

HHC Rwanda’s child protection policy is based on the organisational policy for HHC differing only in providing local procedures for responding to child protection incidents, allegation or concerns. These procedures have been put to the test following a small number of incidents: the team was able to follow the procedures correctly and responded in a timely and professional manner to the incidents, ensuring the immediate and long term safety of the children concerned. The Rwanda child protection policy was extensively reviewed in 2013. All HHC Rwanda staff and partners have been trained in the policy and in child protection generally. HHC Rwanda has also developed a child protection whistleblowing policy which aims to facilitate HHC staff in reporting any concerns regarding the behaviour of their colleagues.

8.13 FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in this organisation within the last 5 years? How was the fraud detected? What action did your organisation take in response ? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

We have not experienced any fraudulent activity within the organisation in the last 5 years. The risk of fraud is minimised through the same preventative measures described in HHC UK section 8.13.

8.14 DUE DILIGENCE: Please provide brief details of any due diligence assessments of the organisation conducted on behalf of DFID or other donors within the past 5 years. Please include date, organisation responsible for the assessment, brief comments, and a link to the assessment, if available.

In 2012 a due diligence review was undertaken by Global Communities in respect of award to HHC as a sub grantee of £425,000 funding from USAID.

8.15 EVALUATION: Please provide details of any independent evaluations of the organisations work that are relevant to the project proposal. Are these published? Can they be shared with DFID?

28

HHC’s ACTIVE Family Support is documented as best practice in forthcoming publication, “Making the Best Choices for the Care of Children: The role of gatekeeping in strengthening family-based care and reforming care systems”. Better Care Network Working Paper Series, 2014Our role in providing the evidence base and model which catalysed the development and approval of GoR’s Strategy for National Child Care Reform in 2012 is independently verified in a forthcoming publication; Keshavarzian, G. & Bunkers, K. (2013) (in draft/unpublished).We can provide references from Maria Herzcog Ph.d, a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and from John Williamson Senior technical advisor at Displaced Children and Orphans Fund of USAID who visited our work as part of a USAID monitoring visit relating to our collaboration for the development of the Ishema Mu Muryango programme.

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION

9.1 Please check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: X

Mandatory Items CheckY/N

Proposal form (sections 1-7) Y

Proposal form (section 8 - for applicant organisation and each partner or consortium member)

Y

Project Logframe Y

Project Budget (with detailed budget notes) Y

Most recent set of organisational annual accounts Y

Project organisational chart / organogram Y

Project bar or Gantt chart to show scheduling of activities Y

Communications Plan (3 documents: cover page, communications plan and activity timetable template)

Y

9.2 Please provide comments on the documentation provided (if relevant)

29