working with civil society partnership scoping manual · understanding, conduct due diligence...
TRANSCRIPT
WORKING WITH CIVIL SOCIETY
PARTNERSHIP SCOPING MANUAL
NORAD FRAMEWORK APPLICATION
FEBRUARY 1, 2018
SAVE THE CHILDREN, NORWAY
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
INFORMATION GATHERING ..................................................................................................................... 2
WORKSHOP – Partnership scoping .......................................................................................................... 3
SESSION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 3
SESSION 2: SEEK COMPLEMENTARITY ................................................................................................. 5
SESSION 3: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 8
SESSION 4: POWER ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 10
SESSION 5: PREPARE A PLAN .............................................................................................................. 12
1
INTRODUCTION The Norad Framework application will be submitted to the Civil Society department of Norad where the
grants aim at strengthening local civil society. It is therefore key for the application to demonstrate
strategic collaboration with civil society partners as an integrated approach to the project design.
The commitment towards partnering with civil society is also echoed in Save the Children’s theory of
change for reaching its ambition; for all children to survive, learn and be protected within 2030. This can
include a range of civil society actors from international and local NGOs to syndicates, knowledge
institutions, and community-based groups, including free media and child-led groups.
It is expected that partnerships will increase the community of support, contribute to unity, gather
diverse strengths, and link talents beneficial to the sustainability of Save the Children’s projects.
Although partnerships being the engine driving our theory of change, recent evaluations1 have criticized
Save the Children shortcomings in transforming its theory of change into practice. Thus, the organization
needs to invest more time and resources into supporting the capacity strengthening of local civil society
actors as well as working more strategically through established civil society structures. To succeed, it
has been recommended that Save the Children improve its tool package, including a partnership scoping
exercise to facilitate the initial selection process.
The partnership scoping is an
internal exercise to
contribute to the contextual
understanding, conduct due
diligence checks and ensure
complementarity in potential
partners. This context
understanding is critical to
select the best-placed
partners, with whom we can
work to improve the lives of
children. The partnership
scoping will take place
through two steps - after the objective is set and geographical location for implementation identified.
The first step is information gathering of relevant actors in the context where the project will be
implemented. The second step is a two-day workshop where the information gathered will be analyzed
through several interactive exercises. The sessions will build on each other and produce well-reasoned
recommendations of which stakeholders to approach for a partnership dialogue. The sequence is
illustrated in the table above.
It is important that the PDQ team(s) and (if existing) specific partnership and advocacy personnel
participate in the exercise as a minimum. If other CO staff are available, especially from the field offices,
they are most welcome. The aim for the country offices is to complete the partnership scoping exercise
within the end of March/first week in April – to allow time for partners to contribute to the content of
the Framework application.
1 Partnership Review (2017) and CHS verification Findings for Humanitarian Quality Assurance Initiative Audit Report (2017)
2
INFORMATION GATHERING Gathering targeted information about who works (actors) in the same thematic and geographical
context as Save the Children will increase the understanding of how Save the Children can influence
children’s well-being, rights, or access to justice. While most country offices are preparing a CRSA that
will provide a valuable situation analysis, additional information must be gathered specifically to the
Norad framework agreement.
Goal: The information gathered should give a context understanding of:
• Who are the change agents in our field of work,
• Which actors have the potential to thrive if supported by an INGO?
Timeline: The information gathering can take place when the overall priorities and geographical
locations for the Framework application have been decided. The information gathered will be analyzed
in a two-day workshop to take place in all countries that are a part of the Norad framework application.
Information sources: The information gathering should not include direct contact with potential
partners, as this can create expectations. Relevant information can rather be gathered through
alternative sources, and these will vary from one context to the next. Typically; this can include but not
be limited to the following:
• Conversations with the government, UN agencies, knowledge institutions, donors, community
members and the media;
• Internal written documents (CRSA, project and donor reports, evaluations, etc.) and dialogue
with colleagues;
• Publicly available sources such as policy statements, press releases, conference reports, etc.
Relevant Information: Questions asked to obtain relevant information need to be tailored to the
context, information source, and objectives of the partnership scoping. The questions below only
provide examples;
• Who can be a convener for relevant actors?
• Who has solid knowledge about the Save the Children priority areas?
• Are there any child led groups, or actors who work in line with our child participation approach?
• Has the actor expertise in a right based approach?
• Has the actor delivered good results in other projects?
• Has the actor a growth potential?
• Has the actor demonstrated a commitment to gender equality?
Documenting findings: It is important to take notes to keep an overview and to inform/compare notes
with colleagues. This information can be put into a spreadsheet. If asked for guidance (by the country
office) on how the notes should be organized, the following table can be provided.
Name of Organization Field of work Reputational strengths Value added to SC projects
3
WORKSHOP – PARTNERSHIP SCOPING The workshop will analyze the information gathered to understand the role of various actors and the
power dynamics taking place. These factors will influence Save the Children’s abilities to reach its project
objectives.
Goal: By the end of the workshop the country office should have clear suggestions of whom to approach
for a partnership dialogue and clear justifications for doing so.
Workshop Methodology:
The workshop excises build on the goals/overall objectives within the Framework application to ensure
practical value. As the workshop is based on group work, it is recommended to divide participants into
thematic/issues based groups as early as day one and keep the same groups throughout the workshop.
SESSION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Goal for the session: Provide the participants with an understanding of;
• findings from previous evaluations
• concept clarification and understanding of SC partner approach.
Background information - findings from evaluations: Various evaluations by SCN and NORAD have
identified good examples of partnership work across the organization. However, the partnership
practices can be further improved by systematic inclusion of the organization’s theory of change in all
stages of the project cycle. Key findings from the evaluations include;
• Collaboration with governments was regarded as relative strong while partnerships with civil
society actors were far weaker, the latter should therefore be prioritized.
• The partnerships with civil society actors are predominately contractual (implementing or
project-based partnerships) rather than based on common objectives and mutual
accountability. Strategic partnerships should be strengthened.
• New partnership agreements are usually awarded to the existing partners without revalidation
of the relevance. Existing partnerships should be assessed in terms of relevance and reviewed
alongside other actors.
Key messages:
• Strategic partnerships will require an investment of time and resources to ensure mutual
accountability towards achieving common goals. To find the best-placed partners, the
current partners will need to be evaluated according to their continued relevance alongside
other actors.
• Collaboration with civil society partners must be an integrated approach in the project
design and accompanied by a budget allocation.
4
Background Information – Save the Children partner approach: Save the Children have identified
three common types of partnership;
The strategic partnerships are long-term to materialize changes and rights for children. It can entail
common advocacy and campaigning objectives, ongoing investment in capacity strengthening, and/or
knowledge partnerships to design, evaluate and scale up innovative solutions for children. It goes
beyond the normal budget cycles and is not defined by a funding relationship.
The project-based partnership is short-term and may only deal with a single piece of work. Its budgetary
implications are clear, competence and capacity building requirements are simpler, and accountability
obligations as well as child rights situation analysis is more straightforward. Its achievements are
measured against the specific objectives of the piece of work.
To take part in allies and networks is the third category. This type of partnerships is less likely to involve
grant transfers and may be based on shared advocacy, campaigning, and communications objectives.
The partnership categories are overlapping, and not exclusive. A partner might move between
partnership categories, preferably from project based to strategic partners, as well as fitting the
description of several of the partner categories at the same time. All partnerships should embody our
principles; value-driven and empowering relationships, transparency and accountability, mutual benefit
and complementarity.
Methodology: Different tools can be used to stimulate discussion. If the meeting facilities will allow, a
“continuum” can be utilized where all the participants stand in a line (behind each other) facing the
facilitator. You as the facilitator will then ask yes and no questions to the participants highlighting typical
dilemmas experienced by country offices in their partnership work. The discussion will then be guided
by the question asked, and it is more likely that everyone will contribute. It is important to ensure that
arguments on both the “yes” and “no” side of the continuum are heard and preferably accompanied by
some examples. Four to five rounds of questions will in most cases generate enough debate- and give
the participants an “energizer” to continue the next sessions.
Key messages:
• Partnerships are the engine that drives innovation processes, ensure that the civil society
can be the voice and that the government will bring proven development practices up to
scale,
• Scoping is the first step in the SCI partnership cycle, and vital for identifying the best-
placed partners that can maximize positive change for children,
• Establishment of strategic partnerships will require time and money. For country offices
who work with many partners, this might mean a reduction in the number of partners,
• Mutual benefit is key for continued commitment of partners and sustainability.
5
SESSION 2: SEEK COMPLEMENTARITY
Goal for the session: Understand what Save the Children can contribute to in a partnership and how
partners skillsets/qualities can complement internal strengths to maximize positive changes for
children.
Background: Positive change for children, and especially the most marginalized cannot be generated
by one organization alone. Partner organizations can complement each other in skillsets, relationships,
and outreach. To be able to ensure complementarity with other organizations; it is important to have a
clear understanding of Save the Children’s added value - and what we should look for in potential
partners. Thus, this session will focus on a self-evaluation of qualities needed to influence positive
change for children.
Methodology:
As the first step, each group will identify what is needed to influence the desired change reflected in the
objectives of the Norad framework application (horizontal axis) and then determine to which extent
(strong, medium or weak) Save the Children possessed these qualities (vertical axis). The group must
have a well-justified argument for their evaluations (preferably with examples).
If the groups in the workshop need some questions to kick off the debate and determine what is needed
to create change, - the following questions can be used;
• Does Save the Children have the technical skillsets relevant for its programs?
• Are Save the Children programs effective in creating lasting change for children?
• Does Save the Children have sufficient and predictable resources that make it possible to reach
the most marginalized and plan project objectives beyond output results?
6
• Does Save the Children have access to decision-makers and the ability to influence policy
processes at the different levels of governance?
• Are the media actors willing to write about Save the Children’s observations, experience and
concerns?
• Does Save the Children have the field presence required to make change for the most
marginalized and deprived children?
• What kind of reputational capital does Save the Children have and how does this influence their
ability to influence change for children?
• Will the Senior Management be able and willing to support the work, and publicly
advocacy/speak on the organization's behalf?
The second step is to complete the self-evaluation according to the qualities required to positively
influence change for the children and reach the objectives of the Norad framework application. The
graph below provides an example of what this can look like.
Step three will look at Save the Children strengths (strong areas) and where it should seek
complementary skills from partners. It is important for the groups to discuss what Save the Children lack
(blue dotted line), and if partners can complement with relevant qualifications/qualities.
7
The last step summarizes the findings. This can be done in different ways, and the table below provides
an example of how the information can be organized. It is important that the groups receive feedback
from colleagues. This can be done by “group-to-group” or plenary presentations/discussions.
SC STRENGTHS SC WEAKNESS SC ADDED VALUE IN PARTNERSHIPS
DESIRED COMPLEMENTARITY IN PARTNERS
8
SESSION 3: STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS The information gathered in advance of the workshop must be available to the groups as this will be
analyzed through various exercises.
Goal for the session: Identify a “longlist” of interesting stakeholders that have the potential to
become partner organizations.
Background: Before starting a project, it’s important to identify and analyze your stakeholders
according to their interest, outreach and other criteria related to your project.
Concept clarification:
• Partners are stakeholders with whom we are
committed to collaborate to achieve
commonly agreed goals and objectives; the
partners have distinct accountabilities and
shared obligations.
• Stakeholders are those actors with a decisive
influence (positive and negative) over our
ability to reach our project goals/objectives.
• Actors are all involved parties in the field of
work, independently of having a
relationship/knowledge of Save the
Children’s work- or not.
Methodology:
Step one will be to revisit the information gathering. The groups will collectively review the findings
obtained in the information gathering. It is important that all participants in a group will be able to air
their experiences regarding the different actors. Firstly, the actors should be reviewed in terms of initial
complementarity as identified in the previous session. Secondly, the actors should be discussed in terms
of its their potential to contribute positive or negatively the change for children outlined in the objective
of the Norad agreement. The actors without any relevance will at this stage be removed from the “list”
of actors. Before making a final decision on which of the actors that will qualify as stakeholders to the
project the following questions can be asked:
Partners
Stakeholders
Actors
Key messages:
• Long-standing relationships based on personal ties and previous cooperation are favored by
many stakeholders when choosing partners, including Save the Children. These partnerships
may can or may not cannot yield good results. Thus, to continue long-standing partnerships,
it would be useful to re-assess and validate their current relevance.
• When assessing potential partners, it is important to consider which type of partnerships
(strategic partnerships, project-based partnerships, and allies and networks) that are best
placed to strengthen the impacts of the desired results.
9
• Do any of the stakeholders represent the interest groups the project intends to benefit?
• Do any of the stakeholders have influence over resources that will be beneficial- or not for the
project?
• What is the motivation and interest of the different stakeholders?
The remaining actors should be regarded as stakeholders.
The second step will be to define some minimum requirements the partners must have to influence the
desired change for children. The minimum standards can relate to Save the Children’s values and norms
such as gender equality, inclusion, child participation, child rights, related to the breakthroughs, access
to decision makers or special qualifications (such as budget tracking, disaster risk reduction, etc) that
will be outside of Save the Children core competences.
The third step will be to analyze to which extent the stakeholders fulfill the minimum standards. This is
not a “tick-exercise” with right or wrong; rather it should be a reflective discussion. Each stakeholder
should be discussed and notes made under each of the minimum criteria. Rather than discussing these
minimum standards as something the stakeholders do- or do not have, the groups can grade (from 1-3)
to get a nuanced impression. The table below gives an overview of what such a grading can look like.
Objective (Example): Ending child marriages
Relevant
stakeholders
Minimum requirements- scored on a scale 1-3 Score
Civil society org Gender
equality
Child
participation
Political
leverage at
district level
Community
presence
Experience in
education
Right to education 2 3 1 6
Youth club 1 3
1 5
Association for
culture and children
2 2
Health charity 2 3 5
Development
network
1 3 3 7
Street children
national
1 3 4
Media 1 3 2 1 7
The last step will be the identification of stakeholders: Based on the table, it should be easy to identify
which of the organizations are compatible with Save the Children.
By this stage, it should be clear which of the stakeholders have complementary capacities, and secondly
meet the minimum requirements expected by the partners. These stakeholders should be mapped out
in terms of power dimensions, and their ability to influence the desired change for children.
It may be useful to give the groups an opportunity to present their reasoning in plenary. Most likely
several of the groups will consider several of the same stakeholders as possible partners.
10
SESSION 4: POWER ANALYSIS
Goal for the session: Map out relations amongst stakeholders and identify who will be best-placed to
advance the wellbeing of children, and especially for the most the marginalized and deprived.
Background: In this exercise power has been described as a restricted resource that people and
institutions can hold, yield, lose or gain, - informally or formally through a mandate or force. Power can
lie with an individual or an organization. Power takes different forms and can be described in multiple
terms. In the case of this guideline, power will be elaborated along three dimensions;
• Formal power refers to the power that has the mandate to make decisions and directly impact
political or systematic change. Powerholders in this category include elected officials, religious
leaders, the legal system, senior management, community leaders and donors. Formal power
holders can make decisions in closed groups, and they are entitled to be in the fora due to their
formal role.
• Informal power. In most contexts, the political agenda and formal decisions are influenced
behind the scene. The influencers with informal power can be interest groups, NGOs, media or
a constituency. Informal power can also be within the political system itself, through a bottom-
up approach. This typically entails a push from the bureaucrats, syndicates or legal system for
the political leadership to make certain decisions or how a law will be practiced at the
community level. Institutions and individuals with informal power can participate in decision-
making fora if they are invited, often with specific limitations.
• Cultural power refers to the power, which influences the norms, beliefs, socialization, and
ideology in a community. Change at a systematic level or implementation of policies and laws
build on the communities’ willingness to adapt to change. Thus, partnering with individuals and
organizations with cultural power can make or break a development investment. The cultural
power holders can be difficult to identify as they are not formal power holders. Cultural power
can be found in charismatic individuals, individuals who are intelligent or assumed to be
popular, religious leaders, educators, youth groups and the media. Cultural power is seldom
directly connected to decision-making processes- rather evolved through interactions and
synergies between individuals/groups.
Key messages:
• A power analysis should be a learning process for staff to understand different forms of
power used to fight injustice and to remove discriminative social and legal barriers for the
children.
• To succeed with a stakeholder power analysis, the purpose will need to be clear and
respond to a given context.
• Power analysis is an under-used tool in context understanding, while power dynamics can
have major impact on the success of a project.
11
Methodology: The stakeholders identified in the last exercise (stakeholder mapping) will be analyzed
in terms of its ability to influence change for children. Step one will be to identify relationship between
stakeholders, and their capacity to contribute to the set objective (in red). The stakeholders are mapped
based on their ability to directly influence the objective. The arrows placed between the circles indicate
influence. It will be key to capture the relationships between the stakeholders. At this stage, it is
important to keep an open mind and not be too concerned with the drawing looking disorganized or
messy.
Step two is to consider who
has the most relevant
outreach and ability to
influence the desired change
for children. Color coding as
shown in the figure can be
useful. In this case, dark
orange has the highest
importance, followed by two
shades of lighter orange.
After step two the most
relevant and influential
organizations will be selected for one last exercise. The selection should be encouraged to include
organizations that has the potential to develop into change agents if receiving the right type of support.
Secondly, it is important to consider if the organization has the potential to be gender transformative
and inclusive.
The next step will be to identify the most attractive stakeholders to work with to improve the situation
for children - as outlined in the objectives for the Norad framework application. Normally this will
include the most powerful/influential stakeholders.
The table below provides an example of how the relevant stakeholders can be reviewed in terms of their
ability to influence the situation for children. If the aim is to influence policy or formal structures,
stakeholders with formal power might be most attractive partners while if the aim is to influence norms
Mrs W- lead of
local Charity
Right to education,
local NGO
Youth club Buisness
community
Prevent Child
marriages
Political
constituenc
y
Local Journalistst
UNICEF
Mr T,
community
leader
Religious leader
Protection
Committees CNN
Mothers
Mrs W- lead of
local Charity
Right to education,
local NGO
Youth club Buisness
community
Prevent Child
marriages
Political
constituenc
y
Local Journalistst
UNICEF
Mr T,
community
leader
Religious leader
Protection
Committees CNN
Mothers
12
and unwritten social standards, it will be useful to partner up with those who have cultural power. The
table below presents the power dimensions for the most relevant stakeholders.
In general, stakeholders that score high on power are the most interesting. Which type of power will
depend on the objective and the existing internal capacities and skill sets in Save the Children.
SESSION 5: PREPARE A PLAN
Once the power mapping is completed and most attractive stakeholders are identified, Save the
Children should prepare a plan for how they can initiate a dialogue to with the selected stakeholders
for potential partnerships. The finale selection of partners should be 2-5 per objective. This can include
potential partners in different geographical locations, including capital level. There might be a need to
separate advocacy partnerships and implementing partnerships. Strategic partnerships should not
necessary be guided by budget transactions, rather common objective and mutual accountability. Some
partners will both require financial support and be a strategic partner to Save the Children. One should
further be observant that not all partners we approach will be able to – or interested in working with
Save the Children.
Example: Prevent Child Marriages.
Relevant Stakeholder Power Type of power
High Medium Low Formal Informal Cultural
Mrs. W. Local Charity x x
Local finance committee x x
Mr., G Religious leader x x x
Local UNICEF office x x x
Communities leader x x
Youth club leader x x
Journalist x x x
Right to education; local
NGO
x x