Arrow: Resource Kit on Leadership & Management. Published by ARROW

ARROW, partners and key stakeholders at the regional meeting, Beyond ICPD and the MDGs: NGOs Strategising for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region, May 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Introduction

ARROW believes that its mission and the long-term objectives of its Strategic Plan will be best achieved in partnership with other like-minded women's NGOs at national, regional and global levels. What began as an effective programme strategy has become an integral way of working—today all of ARROW's programme and projects have a partnership component. ARROW's partners are called upon for their advice and strategic input and all of what ARROW does is rooted in the realities of our partners' country context and realities.

ARROW defines partnership as working in collaboration with individuals and organisations towards achieving agreed upon goals. Partners are organisations that ARROW invites into an agreement to work collaboratively on specific tasks, projects or programmes, with a clear understanding of how and what we will achieve together. While ARROW has evolved different kinds of working relationships with its partners,

ARROW maintains a core set of beliefs that holds true in every partnership. We believe that partnerships:

Are equal relationships in which different roles are played at different levels and yet equally valued;
Provide very good collective learning opportunities both on programme and organisational development matters and are mutually beneficial for ARROW and its partners;
Improve and deepen over time in terms of trust, equality, commitment, effectiveness and friendship, so we prefer long-term relationships;
Need conscious nurturing and capacity building in order to develop full potentials for effectiveness;
Usually develops into solid long-term friendships with individuals and organisations which are very beneficial;
Provide opportunities for very valuable perspectives and strategic inputs for developing ARROWs programme and organisation; and,
Are vital for feminist and NGO movement building, social change and collective action.

These core beliefs combine with ARROW's core values, as stated in our Code of Ethics, to lay the foundation of our working relationships in each partnership.

Following are some of the key ways in which we express our core values in our dealing with partners:

Fairness: We respect our partners' equal right to participate and to be treated equally well in all aspects of programme planning, monitoring and implementation. We seek to provide equal opportunities for each partner to develop both at an individual and organisational level.
Generosity: We share information, resources and time wholeheartedly and responsively, rather than hoarding or clinging, believing that ARROW will grow in abundance, not be depleted by sharing with others.
Social justice: We put at the forefront women's SRHR in all aspects of advocacy work that we engage in with our partners.
Participation: We consult and involve partners in key strategic and operational decisions and sharing information in the belief that more informed and active contributions will lead to programme effectiveness and quality, as well as work satisfaction and commitment to ARROW.
HONESTY: ARROW seeks to be straightforward with our partners and speak the truth in all instances, and to stay aware of, and listen to, all perspectives.
Transparency: We share all financial matters in relation to project funding with partners, and involve them, where possible, in all strategic decisions related to the project.
Accountability: We involve partners in decisionmaking, as well as monitoring and evaluation of our initiatives, including documenting and actively reporting on all that is accomplished together and sharing best practices and results. This is to ensure that we are jointly responsible for fulfilling our goals and addressing the needs of our constituencies.

Given that partners and partnerships play a defining role in the work of ARROW, it is also an area that ARROW has developed some useful processes and tools that we would like to share. There are three topics we have identified that are critical to ARROW's partnership strategy:

Selecting partners;
Sharing power with partners; and
Developing and strengthening capacity of partners

Each of these topics point to a conscious choice making that happens in ARROW's partnerships. As with all human relationships, partnerships need a good measure of the intangibles—warmth, caring, flexibility, good will, mutuality and respect.

What ARROW has understood through experience, however, is that the best partnerships are ones that are built upon clear agreements, open discussion of needs and expectations, a dedication to democratic and transparent processes however time consuming, and a long-term commitment to the partnership. Under each of the three topics chosen for discussion, we will share the ways in which ARROW laid the foundation for all these elements of good partnerships.

TOPIC 6: Selection of partners

Introduction

Partners play an integral role in ARROW's achievement of its mission and the implementation of our Strategic Plan. As such, the first critical step in developing a partnership is the selection of the right partners. This step is important to the overall partnership because it provides a base of commonality from which clear agreements can be reached.

ARROW understood the importance of developing a simple, but clear list of criteria for the selection of partners to ensure a level of consistency and effectiveness in the partnership. Below is the list of criteria ARROW uses as general guideline when considering who to work with:

Commitment to ICPD and Beijing implementation of women's health and rights, particularly SRHR;
Commitment to achieve gender equality and operate as a gender-sensitive organisation;
Involvement in policy advocacy backed by research and monitoring (or planning to be) nationally and/or at a state level;
An organisation that is regarded as a credible and professional NGO respected by government and NGOs;
Ability to work well with other NGOs, and preferably playing a leading role nationally or at state level;
NGOs which work with poor communities directly, or who support the work of NGOs/CBOs who do so;
Organisations, which operate an information resource centre or have an information programme on women's health and rights;
NGOs that are led by women preferably or have a strong gender equality perspective.
An established NGO of at least three years which is able to communicate and manage finance and administration aspects reliably and professionally.

This list of criteria remains as a set of essentials that ARROW looks for in its partners even as our assessment tools for checking other organisational capacities and priorities have become quite extensive. Under this topic, we share one process—Process 6: Assessment and selection of partners, a process of assessment and selection of country partners for collaborative work on research and advocacy for the post-ICPD monitoring process. We hope to provide the reader with an understanding of the detail involved in the partner selection process.

PROCESS 6: Assessment and selection of partners

Introduction

This process¹ describes the steps involved in the assessment and selection of partners in a particular ARROW project, though the steps are applied now in all partners' selection. The step-by-step framework was first written up for partner selection for the Women's Health Rights Advocacy Partnership South Asia project (WHRAP South Asia). An assessment tool was further developed as part of the Knowledge, Information with and between Counterparts (KIC) project. This project was aimed at raising the standards of ARROW's work around monitoring by doing a full assessment of ARROW's past research and monitoring methodologies, as well as partners capacities to engage in this collaborative research and advocacy project. What resulted was a practical self-assessment tool for SRHR NGOs by ARROW's consultant to help assess partner capacities, strengths and challenges.² Although the tool itself is not included in this publication, the following are the key steps in the process of partner assessment and selection:

Develop a partnership selection framework: Partner selection has to be framed by the overall objectives of the project at hand, as well as a clear understanding of the national context, economic, social and political broadly, and the SRHR context in particular.
Conduct a background desk research and mapping: An initial mapping of the political and SRHR contexts is first conducted by ARROW staff. When exploring a new country context, a consultant is commissioned to do a more in-depth study of the new countries, both context analysis and mapping of relevant organisations, in consultation with partners and other organisations.
Conduct a field visit, where possible: ARROW staff personally visit a particular country to become familiar with the context, as well as key SRHR stakeholders. This includes government officials, UN agencies, SRHR NGOs, other social movement organisations, and key individuals working in that context. It is a valuable step as it provides ARROW with a fuller picture of potential partners and the contexts in which ARROW seeks to make an impact.
Conduct a general consultation with new potential partners: Hold dialogues with organisations identified as potential partners. It is useful to have an interactive dialogue with potential partners in a larger consultation that aims to understand country contexts and challenges of women's and SRHR NGOs, while also getting to know the potential partner organisations.
Do an analysis of the potential partner organisation's capacities: ARROW utilises its existing criteria and the SRHR Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool. ARROW also uses another tool known as Mango's Health Check, an open source financial assessment tool that examines the financial processes and systems that are in place in these organisations. In the WHRAP-South Asia initiative, a tool known as the Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool (ACAT) developed by Alliance for Justice is also now being used. This measures the advocacy capacity of the partners. Results are used to gauge capacity building needs.
Make a selection in consultation with existing partners and ARROW's Board: In most of our partnership projects, a Steering Committee is formed, and this body makes decisions based on recommendations from ARROW. The new partner organisation would also have to fulfil ARROW partnership criteria as well as the project criteria. The Board also gives their opinion on the selection of new partners.

STORY 15: Staff experiences of partners selection
— Sai Jyothirmai Racherla and Nalini Singh

The selection of partners for a new project is an important piece in the overall process of project preparation. In the ICPD+15 project, we had to select a number of new partners. In this story we share our experience identifying the best possible new partners in Vietnam:

Prior to the start of the ICPD+15 regional research and advocacy project, we held a series of meetings in the office to assess all the tasks that needed to be done for the ICPD+15 monitoring and advocacy project, including developing a partner selection framework and plan.
The team then compared this with the self-assessment conducted in 2008 by our existing partner in Vietnam, the Research Centre for Gender, Family and Environment in Development (CGFED).
This was followed by an initial desk research conducted to look at various other NGOs working in the field of SRHR in Vietnam.
ARROW also consulted the Ford Foundation's office based in Vietnam to suggest potential NGOs with whom ARROW might collaborate. Given Ford Foundation's work with national partners in the areas of sexuality and SRHR, we believed that their inputs would be very useful.
A two -day field visit was conducted by an ARROW staff, and she visited six different national organisations and networks working in the areas of sexuality and SRHR.
After much consultations and discussion with NGOs in Vietnam and CGFED, ARROW decided to expand its partnership in Vietnam to include the Centre for Creative Initiatives in Health and Population (CCIHP) (a research organisation with extensive work on sexuality and young people) and Institute for Reproductive Family Health (RaFH) with expertise on advocacy. The ICPD+15 monitoring and advocacy initiative in Vietnam team was expanded to three partners whose collective strengths aimed to enhance the national-level monitoring and advocacy on SRHR.

ARROW works with partners for the long-term and in doing so the partner selection process becomes very important. ARROW's lengthy process allows for greater understanding of contexts in each country and how the organisations have been working on SRHR issues. It is important to put in the required time to find organisations who would like to work with ARROW and vice versa. There is greater communication, understanding of each other and trust building which are all hallmarks of good partnerships.

Communication of intentions is key to this process. This happens from the beginning when ARROW looks to finding and working with new partners. This is built in by having clear communications on the processes entailed, leading up to what ARROW works on and what the expectations of the particular partnership would entail. Making an effort to meet with the new partners to explain also helps. Having a participatory approach in deciding on working together is also important.

Listening to the new partners to understand their needs and challenges is also an important aspect. In most instances, sharing of experiences, identifying and working together on challenges and gaps also helps to build the relationship and this is continued in later programmes and projects.

TOPIC 7: Sharing power in partnerships

Introduction

To be effective as a regional organisation, ARROW understands very clearly that it needs to work in solidarity with national SRHR organisations in the region. Over the years, the bond between ARROW and our partners has grown strong and ARROW sees its partners as fundamental to the life and existence of the organisation. Given this, how these partnerships are forged and how power is shared within them is critical.

Being founded by feminists rooted in the ideals of the women's movement, ARROW has always viewed partnerships as being a relationship amongst equals, where respect, transparency and mutual support are equally important elements. Even so, many of the programmes and projects in which we engage with partners include financial resources, with ARROW as the budget holder and custodian of funds with the responsibility to report on the project and ensure that it is implemented well at national and regional levels.

This means that there is a hierarchy of responsibility and accountability, of one organisation having “power over” the other in relation to the control and management of resources. Finding balance between this formal relationship of power with partners with the essential principle that ARROW sees itself as an equal with its partners has been done in a number of ways.

One of the key ways in which ARROW has sought to share power in their partnership relationships is to establish a partnership or project steering committee that makes substantive decisions on matters related to the implementation of a partnership project.

This steering committee, made up of representatives (usually the heads of organisation) of partner organisations, ensure the accountability, smooth management and effectiveness of the different partnership projects. These steering committees are very much in keeping with ARROW's partnership principles of participation, transparency and accountability. There are several such steering committees in place, amongst them, the WHRAP-South Asia Working Group, the WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee, and the International Management Committee of the WHRAP-Southeast Asia. Each one of these Steering Committees develop their own Terms of Reference (TOR) and ARROW staff take charge of ensuring that the Steering Committee meets and takes up their roles and responsibilities within the project.

Under this topic, we share one process and two tools:

PROCESS 7: Sharing power in partnerships, which describes the different ways that ARROW creates conditions for sharing power in partnership relationships;
TOOL 14: Partnership agreement; and,
TOOL 15: WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee TOR as an example of a project steering committee and how it establishes clear guidelines and agreements that support transparency, accountability and power sharing within their partnerships.

PROCESS 7: Sharing power in partnerships

Introduction

ARROW is strongly committed to sharing power in our partnerships. By sharing power in partnerships, we mean:

Recognising power differentials and hierarchies as they may exist in a partnership relationship; and,
Establishing practices and processes that seek to balance the power differentials, and ensure the maximum degree of equality and mutuality in the relationship.

The following are some of the key practices and processes that ARROW has put in place to support power sharing in our partnerships:

Making strong commitments to inclusive and consultative processes: Partners play a defining role in setting ARROW's strategic priorities through their active participation in ARROW's strategic planning processes. As such, partners identify the context and priorities that ARROW seeks to respond to through its Strategic Plan expressed in our five-yearly Work Programme and Budget. Select partners that become Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) members continue to give active inputs into ARROW's annual programme plans and directions. ARROW often chooses its Board members from its partner organisations.
Investing in participatory meeting processes: ARROW invests heavily in planning meetings with partners that are run in a highly participatory and democratic manner. All of ARROW's regional projects begin with a planning meeting, where all those involved in a programme or project get involved in decisions related to the objectives, outputs and budgets of the project.
Paying attention to decision-making processes: ARROW is conscious that participatory decisionmaking processes are central to sharing power in relationships.
Negotiating partnership agreements: Written agreements are developed when working together on projects that involve finances. Such agreements include clear statement of expectations, objectives and work outputs, budgets and relationship commitments from both parties. This way, relationships of accountability over resources are clearly delineated and unambiguous, and there is transparency on the nature of the relationship.
Staying transparent in budgeting and fundraising: Partners have access to relevant details of finances related to a project. Budget decisions regarding compensation for work are conducted in a transparent and fair manner so that work at all levels is given equal respect and value. In long-term partnerships such as the WHRAP-South Asia, partners are consulted even prior to fundraising to ensure that the fundraising is fully aligned with the collective agreements of the partners.
Establishing partner-led project governance mechanisms: ARROW has begun to establish Steering Committees for some of its major partnership projects. These Steering Committees are peopled by key representatives of the partners involved in the project, and all major decisions in relation to the project implementation are made by and with the Steering Committee.
Being open about conflict and dissatisfaction: ARROW stays open to dissatisfaction, performance issues and conflicts by creating space and time in our project meetings for such matters to be raised. Issues such as these are dealt with quickly, honestly and sensitively towards trying to strengthen rather than end relationships.
Being committed to partners' capacity building: ARROW strongly believes that its own mission is strengthened by supporting and strengthening its partners. Most of ARROW's partners are highly skilled in many areas, and yet need opportunities to grow and learn in other areas. As a regional organisation, ARROW sees that it is in the position to facilitate co-learning experiences, and build in capacity building as a component of all of its projects.
Giving time to building solidarity and friendships: Meetings are planned in countries and locations where partners are able to relax and feel comfortable. All ARROW meetings include time in the schedule for partners' participating to better understand the country context, organisation and political contexts of other partners better. Time is also given to strengthen solidarity and friendships.
Showing appreciation: It may seem simple, but to ARROW, expressions of respect, understanding, flexibility, gratitude and admiration are extremely important for genuine relationship building. Partners can only know they are highly valued and appreciated if this is actually expressed both verbally and through thoughtful actions.
Reflective processes of project evaluation: ARROW uses project review and evaluation meetings to create reflective spaces where the partners jointly reflect upon and agree to achievements, lessons learned and what needs to be strengthened.
Commitment to clear documentation and guidelines: ARROW believes that the best way to be transparent and open about power and authority and how it is distributed in partnership relationships is to develop and document all key procedures and processes. As such, ARROW has developed and documented procedures and processes such as partnership agreements, terms of reference, meeting guidelines, job descriptions, and grievance procedures to govern the relationships of partnership.

TOOL 14: Partnership agreement

Introduction

A key component of establishing an equitable working relationship with an ARROW partner is the partnership agreement. The partnership agreement takes the form of a letter that outlines the memorandum of understanding between the two organisations delineating the roles, responsibility and relationships agreed to in a particular project.

Why was the tool developed?

This tool was developed to ensure clarity, transparency and accountability in the partnership in relation to project work carried out jointly. ARROW believes that the more clearly stated the terms of the relationship are the more open, transparent and accountable can the partnership be.

How was the tool developed?

There is a standard format that has been institutionalised over the years. In each project, the template is revised to include the details of the particular project and the requirements of the donor for the project. Every effort is made to ensure that partners understand the documents and comply with the requirements.

Key elements of the partnership agreement

Following are some of the key elements that a typical partnership agreement letter would contain:

Background and objectives of the project that both parties will work on together;
Parameters of the project—if the project is a regional project, then it will state broadly the regional parameters, but focus more specifically on the specific national context in which the partner is working;
Work plan outline listing all the activities that the partner will undertake, the timeline and the budget allocated to it;
Clear listing of obligations and expected outputs from ARROW and its partner;
Details of the funds involved and the financial arrangements;
Details on reporting, both types and timeline;
Anti-corruption clause;
Confidentiality agreement; and
Legal statement regarding disputes to the contract and the terms of agreement.

A sample of one such partnership letter of agreement is listed as Annexe 8.

How to use the tool

This tool is used to negotiate partnership relationships in projects where collaboration is expected on project outputs. A draft partnership agreement letter is sent to the partner for the review and comments, and once a process of negotiations and clarification has taken place, and an agreement is reached, the finalised document is signed by both parties.

Challenges experienced using the tool

There have been no real challenges. The procedure is clear, and both ARROW and our partners are clear on why it is needed.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

Give time for the process of signing the partnership agreement. There will be questions or points of clarification needed from both sides.
ARROW has found that partnership agreements are valuable even if the actual money involved is very small. The agreement clarifies expectations on both sides, and makes the working relationship much smoother.

STORY 16: A partner's experience of being part of an ARROW partnership
— Samia Afrin, Bangladesh

We need transparency and trust building, communication and information dissemination amongst partners, and I believe ARROW does this. ARROW keeps partners informed about everything that they do, including their strategic plan, and we even know what their project activities are.

What I like about ARROW is that it is always transparent about the budget. ARROW always consults its partners on its strategic planning. We trust ARROW, and they trust us. I am able to directly speak to Lela and Sham before, and to Bee Khim and Nalini now—ARROW staff readily give advice on financing, and give suggestions. Trust building happens from us talking directly to ARROW; things are not always so smooth, but we can negotiate with them. I find that ARROW respects us, and I have not experienced ARROW staff being dominating. I mainly work with WHRAP-South Asia staff, but these people are very familiar and nice.

I think that ARROW writing everything down, and having Memorandums of Agreement, is a good practice. Recently for ICPD+20, there was only US$5000 involved in the project, and even then, we had a written memorandum of one or two pages on how this money is to be used. I think this is a good practice and it shows accountability. I think this practice is also good for accounting purposes.

What I admire is that ARROW takes every decision with its partners. They always take decisions by discussing it with us either by email or face-to-face. From my relationship with ARROW over the years, I have learned that partnership is about open discussion, transparency, and also knowing when privacy is needed. I now practice open discussions with our CBO partners.

STORY 17: Experiences of the Steering Committee of WHRAP-South Asia
— Indu Capoor, Jashodhara Dasgupta, Naureen Tawakkal and Shireen Huq

WHRAP South Asia is a collegium of fairly like-minded women and health organisations in South Asia...working with a holistic women's health perspective...I don't see WHRAP as a network because networks are more instrumental but I see it as something deeper than a network, as a platform for reflection and collective action. It's much more than a project with a set of activities...

— Jashodhara Dasgupta, SAHAYOG, India

WHRAP is a collective learning, sharing and planning platform...and we have a very clear focus on women's health. We are each doing different work, but none of us are trying to overpower the partnership. We have in common the fact that we really care about women's health...and we develop together strategic for social change...

— Indu Capoor, CHETNA, India

Below is a composite of interviews and stories provided by WHRAP-South Asia members.

The following are some elements of the WHRAP South Asia partnership that we Steering Committee members think have strengthened the partnership:

Decision-making/Participation: All partners, both national partners as well as ARROW as a regional partner, decide on the direction of the work;
Sharing experiences: The partnership is fed and developed through experience, and not by theory or intellect alone;
Mutual respect: WHRAP-South Asia is a genuinely inclusive space—there is an element of careful listening, and taking on-board everyone's thoughts;
Norm of inclusivity: The partnership has nurtured the capacity in all of us to create more inclusive spaces, and lead discussions that promote such an environment;
Generosity: ARROW staff members express a spirit of solidarity through the way they work with us—they give their time, and are always present to support the partnership, and facilitates processes such that inclusivity is the norm.
Community: WHRAP-South Asia emphasised the importance of getting to know each other's organisations. Holding meetings in different sites has enabled us to get to know each other better. ARROW has not sought to stay at the centre of this partnership. Rather, it has supported partners building strong relationships with each other.
Building relationships: Relationship building has been a crucial component of WHRAP- South Asia. Things have not been business-like. This partnership is indeed a series of relationship, and ARROW has always recognised the importance of this. Simple things like a welcome dinner have enabled the relationship building process over the long term.
Flexibility: There is always flexibility within the partnership and we take time on to meet in strategic moments in a flexible way.
Creativity and openness: There is a lot of lateral thinking in WHRAP-South Asia—we are always finding different ways to work together, and this includes creative uses of the resources we have.
Strengthening common purpose: WHRAP-South Asia benefits from the way the ARROW partnership works overall, since ARROW looks for ways to stay in relationship with its partners over the longer term, WHRAP-South Asia partners have been included where possible in other projects and initiatives of ARROW. Being ARROW partners and not just within the WHRAP-South Asia partnership makes a difference to the partnership.
Organisation-based: ARROW seeks to support the development of the whole organisation of its partners, and not just the individual. As such, being a partner of ARROW has meant that many different aspects of the organisation benefit from capacity building initiatives and support.

Within such a partnership, the Steering Committee of WHRAP-South Asia is a strategic advocacy platform and a governance mechanism that supports our working together.

There was previously an informal partners' platform from the beginning of WHRAP, but in Phase II, Danida required more formality. The partners' platform used to meet twice a year for review meetings and decide on our work. The Steering Committee is now the space where the partners come together to:

formulate proposals jointly;
agree on what we will be accountable for; and,
think collectively about how we want to work together as a region.

The Steering Committee brings together senior members of partner organisations, people who are leaders in the civil society in the South Asian movements. This is important because South Asian dynamics are fairly unique and we need people who understand the dynamics of this region. Being able to see the big picture and focus on what needs to be done at that level is a key strength of the Steering Committee.

Although we are defined as a governance and conflict resolution body, we have not had so much of a challenge on either of these fronts. There was once a partnership that needed to be brought to an end, but even then it was really ARROW and Sham who took charge of dealing with this difficult issue.

With great patience and perseverance, Sham did everything possible to salvage that relationship, and it took almost a year for the final decision to be made. Sham consulted all of us and kept the process very transparent, but in the end it was Sham together with the Board of ARROW that decided on this. ARROW was also very sensitive about the privacy concerns of the partner, and Sham made sure that the partner was respected right through the process.

What we do need to do more as the Steering Committee and WHRAP-South Asia is greater continuity and picking up from the lessons that we learn from our experiences. We have reflection meetings and retreats and evaluative discussions at the end of every phase of WHRAP, but we need a compendium of lessons learnt so that we can keep building upon our experience.

TOOL 15: WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee Terms of Reference

Introduction

The WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee Terms of Reference (TOR) is a policy document that outlines the roles and responsibilities of the WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee members and the Committee as a whole in relation to the WHRAP-South Asia partnership and its project implementation.

Why was the tool developed?

The tool was developed to clearly outline the aims, roles and responsibilities of the WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee, while also providing guidelines for how meetings are conducted and how decisions are reached. This is in keeping with ARROW's commitment to transparency and accountability in partnership relationships.

How was the tool developed?

The WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee TOR was developed in what the Steering Committee has described as a “landmark moment.” The process of developing the TOR was a process of deep interrogation about, the very nature of the WHRAP-South Asia partnership.

What are the key elements of this tool?

The WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee TOR contains the following key elements:

A clear description of what the Steering Committee is, and who can become a member of it;
The objectives of the Steering Committee;
The roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee with reference to achieving the mission of the partnership project as a whole;
A description on the management arrangements between the Steering Committee and ARROW;
An annexe listing the principles that guide the partnership overall; and,
An annexe containing the detailed outline of a standard Steering Committee meeting agenda format.

How to use the tool

This document is used to:

Guide the Steering Committee in carrying out its roles and functions;
Orient new members of the Steering Committee as well as new WHRAP-South Asia staff on the roles and responsibilities of the Steering Committee, and the relationship of ARROW, in its role of secretariat, to the WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee; and
To assist the WHRAP-South Asia staff in preparations for Steering Committee meetings.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

One key challenge is evaluating or assessing the Steering Committee's role or contribution outside of the meeting processes. Most of the steering committee reps are not remunerated by the programme and their contribution is usually in decision making at the organisational level as well as in advocacy. They are not direct implementers of the programme.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

One way in which the WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee members have decided to rectify the above problem is by having the programme managers (who are the programme implementers) become members of the steering committee.

TOPIC 8: Capacity development and strengthening: Building and sustaining partnerships

Introduction

ARROW recognises capacity development and strengthening as an integral component of not just strengthening our relationship with other partners, but also an effective way of achieving our long-term objective of strengthening civil society and social movements for SRHR advocacy.

ARROW recognises that its partners are highly-skilled and have in a wide range of expertise, and seeks therefore to play a facilitative role in encouraging co-learning and skills exchange opportunities between partners.

Where identified, through careful assessment of learning needs and challenges, specific capacity development inputs are facilitated. ARROW understands capacity development of partners to mean all inputs and processes that enable:

Opportunities for co -learning, skills and knowledge sharing to happen between and amongst partners;
Sharing, listening and exchanges of experiences and insights to take place between and amongst partners; and;
Structured technical and other inputs that results in enhancement of skills and capacities in a partner's identified area of need.

ARROW builds into every programme and project opportunities for capacity development as described above. Since one of ARROW's key long-term objectives is strengthening civil society and social movements' capacities to influence policy agendas and to hold governments and donors accountable for international and national agreements, it is no surprise that ARROW's strongest focus is on strengthening capacities for evidence-based research, monitoring and advocacy.

Under this topic, we share one process, PROCESS 8: Capacity building for evidence-based monitoring and advocacy. While this processes outlines steps that are taken to support capacity building of partners in this particular area of need, the basic steps would apply to responding to capacity building needs in different areas.

PROCESS 8: Capacity building for evidence-based monitoring and advocacy

Introduction

Capacity building is a key programme strategy that is built into all our programmes and partnerships. It is a component of every partnership, and takes on different forms depending on the needs of our partners and the needs of our projects.

Capacity building for evidence-based monitoring and advocacy refers specifically to all processes that support the capacity of partners to participate effectively in ARROW's regional research projects to produce evidence through monitoring and advocacy.

It has been a critical factor in the success of our post-ICPD and other monitoring and advocacy work because it has enabled ARROW and its partners to produce regional reports that are consistent across countries, providing in-depth, well-analysed, technically-sound, comparative data that is used as evidence for national and regional level advocacy.

Key components of this process

Following are the key components:

Assess needs of partners: All partners are selected on the basis of the strengths and track record in doing research and/or advocacy in their national contexts. Even so, we recognise that all organisations have strengths and areas for growth, and invite our partners carrying out a self-assessment using our organisational assessment questionnaire specially tailored for the purposes of the project. The information gathered from the questionnaire survey of our partners then becomes the background information we need when designing the overall project implementation, including the planning meeting.
Design learning into planning meetings—All our regional projects begin with a planning meeting that is held with all partners participating in the project. This meeting is very carefully designed to address the learning and capacity building needs that may have been identified by our partners. Often, one or more facilitators, are invited to facilitate the meeting, and depending on the needs of the project, one or more resource people are invited to give substantive technical inputs.
Include peer exchange and co -learning opportunities: Given that all of our partners have skills and knowledge to offer others in the project, most of our meetings are designed as co-learning environments, where partners have an opportunity to share what they know, comment on each other's designs and plans, and give each other critical feedback on national research plans, as well as plans for national level advocacy using the evidence gathered.
Provide technical inputs from expert resource people: ARROW's research projects involve comprehensive research-based monitoring methodologies involving gathering, organising and analysing statistical data from the grassroots in ways that can be used effectively as tools for policy advocacy. Our projects also seek to harness national and local level media and influence the national policy environment using the evidence that we produce from our research. As such, we build in opportunities in our meetings for partners to update existing skills in these areas and to acquire new ones. We draw upon experts as resource people to provide technical inputs in areas, such as research methodology, research writing, production of media packages and press releases for media advocacy, policy analysis and so forth.
Create space for partners to share experiences: A central feature of all ARROW's partnership projects is the inherent opportunity that partners have to learn from each other's experiences and strategies. Recognising the importance of South-to-South learning and the immense value of “learning by sharing,” a component of ARROW's capacity building for evidence-based monitoring and advocacy is simply creating space for partners to share their project results and collectively discuss their political contexts, challenges and solutions sought.
Build in advocacy and actions into the monitoring project: All of ARROW's post-ICPD monitoring and advocacy research projects have included a component of actually developing a national advocacy plan using the advocacy tools developed through the project. We find that this is the best way for partners to leverage the regional nature of the project, and use the momentum of multiple advocacy actions by other partners to influence national policy makers. Partners are also able to compare advocacy strategies and continue learning from each other even after the evidence gathering and data analysis segments of the project are concluded.
Provide opportunities for regional and international advocacy: Another important way to build partner capacities is to seek out opportunities for partners to learn from participating in regional and international meetings and conferences, particularly those where there is an advocacy platform to become engaged in. This enables partners to be able to see the larger policy environment, and to also push their national governments to honour commitments to SRHR made at regional and international levels.

Challenges experienced in going through the process

Not all partners are at the same capacity level and it sometimes becomes an issue in group processes to bring all to the same level of understanding and capacity. This is often time consuming and resource intensive but in the long run very beneficial to all.
The contexts in different regions, sub regions and even countries are so varied and responses to capacity building needs are varied. While this brings about complexities in having tailored group capacity building processes, this is also a source of enriched discussions.

Tips: Lessons from the process

It is important when designing projects and programmes to build in time and resources for capacity building. It is important to factor in each of the project partners challenges and to not have assumptions and beyond reach expectations.
Follow up is critical to ensure outcomes and you need to work closely with partners on this.
Inform donors of these capacity building processes so that they also understand the needs of partners and continue to be supportive.

STORY 18: Research writing workshop: Capacity building in action

Capacity building for evidence-based monitoring and advocacy is built into most of our projects. One such example is regional monitoring and advocacy research project for ICPD+15 where there were several activities focused on capacity building for partners, including a research writing workshop. In these workshops, partners who may not have experience in research writing and data analysis benefitted from the collective wisdom and expertise of researchers, academicians, activists and other resource persons sharing in rich discussions and learning exercises together. The following is the account of one such research writing workshop held from 15–17 March 2009 at the ARROW office in Kuala Lumpur.

This three-day regional research writing workshop organised by ARROW brought together researchers and report writers from the 12 countries covered by the project. Additionally, resource persons with expertise in research and report-writing skills, and in rights, gender and women-centred perspectives were invited to the meeting to facilitate the learning process. The workshop adopted a participatory, peer-assisted methodology, to enhance learning and active sharing among the participants and resource persons, and among participants themselves.

Participants, who came from the partner organisations involved in this research project, were exposed to diverse perspectives in the areas of the ICPD POA framework, gender, human rights approaches and women-centred concepts, as well as how to integrate these perspectives in the writing, analysis and drafting of recommendations of the country research reports. Participants of the Research Writing Workshop noted, “[The] gender perspective presentation was conceptually very effective”; and that it was “very helpful to discuss perspective[s] and receive practical tips for our reports.” The facilitators for sessions focused on perspective and analysis development were Ranjani Krishnamurthy and Rashidah Abdullah.

Participants gained knowledge and skills around the methodology of writing research reports and in a format acceptable in an academic context. This component of skills building was vital, especially to participants from NGO backgrounds where research may not be as rigorous or as much a priority, to present their grassroots evidence and research data for publishing. Pimpawun Boonmongkon, Director of the Centre for Health Policy Studies in Mahidol University of Thailand, presented pointers on consolidating a country case study, including the parts of the paper and proper citation format.

Aside from plenary input and discussions, there were also sub-regional group discussions (the South Asia team, the Southeast Asia team and the Mekong team) to discuss the data collection and data verification of the 80 SRHR indicators for the regional overview. The teams were led by specific resource persons for each group and by the ARROW ICPD+15 project staff.

The peer-assist and resource person-facilitated methodology of this meeting gave participants the opportunity to deepen their understanding of various datasets available, explained the advantages and disadvantages of using these datasets, including the gaps not shown, and methods to retrieve secondary literature where gaps exist. In particular, online resources on SRHR, including that of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the country demographic health surveys, were shared amongst the participants. The meeting ensured that all participants had access to laptops and internet connections, thus allowing participants to gain first-hand experience in searching for data online. The meeting also created opportunities to interrogate the politics of choosing an indicator that would assess the progress since ICPD in a more accurate manner. Data gathering skills, including how to access data, which databases to choose from and what indicators to select, were also imparted.

Furthermore, there were also rich discussions in the sub-regional groups on how the different SRHR indicators were progressing, enabling a shared understanding of national and sub-regional contexts and trends.

STORY 19: A partner's capacity building experience
— Samia Afrin

The partnership with ARROW has meaning for me at both personal and professional levels. I gained a lot of things personally through the ARROW partnership. I attended my first regional meeting in 2003 and at this time, I barely knew English, and there was lots of capacity building offered. ARROW is the type of organisation that always builds up the capacity of other people. ARROW never said, “Samia is not a good or right person.” ARROW always appreciates and is always helpful.

Organisationally, ARROW's regional advocacy is a chance for Naripokkho to have our advocacy, data and issues to be taken up at the regional level. I think ARROW mentored not just me personally but my organisation as well. I always share any capacity building that I have had through ARROW and push for the same in my organisation, and I try to organise similar activities for our WHRAP CBO partners. I have tried to replicate what I have learned in other organisations through both the field visits and learning exchanges.

I see the WHRAP-South Asia partnership as a good thing—people like Nalini and Biplabi are very supportive and they help me with so many things, and write everything down for us. This is very useful. One example of this is the recent regional advocacy dialogue in New Delhi. I was presenting our findings on maternal death, and I had prepared a presentation from Bangladesh.

Nalini and Shama offered to listen to my presentation, and when I did, they gave me lots of feedback. They helped me with things like time, eye contact, and style and helped me with the entire presentation. The feedback was very specific, and helped me understand the difference between the notes that I had and the presentation itself. I understood that I should not just read from the notes directly, but use them to make my points during the presentation.

Another experience that I have was the final evaluation and review process of WHRAP-South Asia Phase II. We partners actually followed the evaluators and we learnt so much from this process. I have replicated this with Naripokkho's CBO partners. I also really learnt so much from the media training which was held from WHRAP-South Asia and WHRAP-South East Asia partners. I came back and disseminated it to other Naripokkho staff members.

A Cambodian young woman