The right to sexual pleasure is part of SRHR; At an ARROW workshop on sexuality and rights.
ARROW is determined to continue to work very hard in the future to achieve our mission and long-term objectives of influencing national and international policies and programmes to ensure provision of comprehensive, gender-sensitive, high-quality, accessible and rights-based services for sexual and reproductive health. There has been some good progress made in these last two decades. However, the global and country contexts have become more challenging and our work has thus become even more important. We are convinced that our work will remain highly relevant and needed.
When we speak of sustaining our organisation in the future, it is within this context of the relevance of ARROW's work. Our current work spans information and communications, evidence generation for advocacy, including consistent monitoring of progress towards international commitments vis-a-vis women's health, capacity development and partnership building for advocacy, and organisational development.
We need to be able to continue to work in a dedicated and competent manner doing what we have laid out to do in our strategic plan. We want to do so in a manner that renews the organisation, strengthens our capacity to learn and grow together as an organisation, while at the same time remaining cutting-edge, innovative and highly strategic in all our programmes and interventions.
With these goals for our future, we see a number of areas that are critical to the strength and sustainability of the organisation:
- A very good strategic plan;
- Programme guidelines that ensure the high quality and relevance of programmes;
- A well thought-out and effective planning, monitoring and evaluation system;
- Funding availability and good financial management;
- A working environment for staff that is meaningful and enjoyable, where staff are well-rewarded and can avail of opportunities to learn and grow;
- Succession leadership planning; and,
- Investing in young people's leadership.
Often, when NGOs think of sustainability, the first thing that comes to mind is having the funds available to sustain programmes. While this is undoubtedly very important, we have found out in ARROW that unless the organisation is needed because it has a clear direction and strategic plan, and its programmes are of high quality and relevant, financial sustainability is of little significance. Likewise, an excellent strategic plan and sufficient funds, but high staff turnover and low capacity to achieve the plan would not ensure the organisation's sustainability in the future.
In this chapter, we share some of the resources that we have developed to build a sustainable organisation. We have chosen four topics to cluster these resources under:
- Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation, where we share three resources related to building a strong programmatic direction;
- Ensuring the quality and relevance of programmes, where we share two resources related to clear programme guidelines and processes that ensure the high quality of our work; i
- Financial sustainability, where we share one resource on how we approach fundraising; and,
- Investing in people, where we share three resources on the different components of ARROW's commitment to paying attention to the people who make up the organisation.
TOPIC 9: Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation
Introduction
If building the future of ARROW is like continuing to build a house, then strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation would be the very foundation of that house. Without an excellent strategic plan that is timely, relevant and responsive to real needs, and an effective system to monitor and evaluate its implementation, there would not be much of a future for the organisation.
Strategic planning refers to the steps that are taken to translate the organisation's mission into programmatic action. Planning, monitoring and evaluation of programmes refer to all the processes that the organisation undertakes to develop, manage and learn throughout the process of programme implementation. Monitoring draws out shorter-term learning that can be integrated into programmes to improve and enhance the strategic nature of implementation. Evaluation draws out longer-term learning that is integrated as lessons learnt for the future once a programme or project is completed.
Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation are congruent with ARROW's commitment to quality and innovation. We see this component of the organisation as critical to ensuring the sustainability of the organisation and a solid foundation for building our future.
In this topic, we share two key processes, the process of strategic planning and the planning, evaluation and monitoring (PME) cycle. We have presented each of these processes in broad strokes that can be adapted to suit your own organisational settings.
ARROW, since its first strategic plan process in 1993 out of which came the ARROW 3-year programme funded by Sida, has always focused on what needs to he done and then stepped up to this capacity-wise. So far this has worked out well.. We have advised others to think big and bold, be idealistic and confident because you so much want the changes envisaged to be achieved. The practical part is the implementation plan that comes later so [it's] best not to focus on this too early, or [else] doubts and anxieties may become too prominent.
—Rashidah Abdullah, Founder-Director and Board member of ARROW
Introduction
ARROW's Strategic Planning refers to the process, held every five years, of review and planning of the organisation's overall strategic direction and developing the organisation's next five year strategic plan. The process results into a Strategic Plan, a document that is then used for all fundraising and become the anchor for the entire cycle of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME). The first Strategic Planning meeting involving all of ARROW's key partners took place in 2001, in Port Dickson, Malaysia.
Why was the process developed?
ARROW understands the strategic planning process as a critical component of ensuring the quality and relevance of programmes with respect to its organisational objectives and mission. It is also in keeping with our core values of commitment to quality, participation, transparency and innovation. The actual Strategic Planning meeting also provides the opportunity for ARROW to fully consult its partners and to keep our programmes closely aligned with the context and needs of the region.
Key steps to ARROW's strategic planning process
- The Executive Director (ED) is delegated by the Board to lead the 5-year and annual strategic planning process and develops a plan, with inputs from the Management Team (MT), to manage and implement the process. This draft process plan is also shared to staff members for their feedback, and approved by the Board of Directors (BOD; also Board) at a regular meeting of the Board.
- A meeting of partners, PAC and the Board is convened to give the main input to the 5-year process of assessing the external and internal environments and revisiting strategies and objectives. ARROW's long-term partners of at least three years are invited to the strategic planning meeting. ARROW emphasises a strongly participatory meeting process, to allow everyone to have a voice and to be included in the reflection, assessment and planning of the organisation's onward journey. Facilitators, sometimes hired externally, play an important role in keeping the process fully participatory. The meeting agenda is developed well ahead of time and a small team that includes Board members is created.
- The meeting is documented, with the report including major considerations raised by participants, and agreements that were arrived at.
- Issues are further discussed at the PAC and Board meetings scheduled right after the partners' meeting.
- Following the above meetings, a smaller group of writers are tasked with taking all of the considerations raised, assessing the internal organisational environment and identifying critical issues. This smaller team consists of at least two Board members, besides the ED and other assigned staff members.
- A special staff meeting is held to focus on aspects of the 5-year strategic planning and get their inputs, especially on the internal environment. The management team also holds special meetings focusing on the internal environment and strategic issues facing the organisation and the overall programme.
- These various inputs are incorporated by the smaller strategic planning team into the Strategic Plan document. Once it is finalised, it is submitted to the Board for their approval.
Challenges experienced in this process
- Finding a good facilitator that can balance the expectations of all concerned and carry out the meeting as per expectations can take time and effort.
- Ensuring that the meeting genuinely engages partners so that it is not a one-way process takes quite a bit of planning ahead. We have had partners presenting some parts of the evaluation of certain areas of work from their national perspective, and this has worked well.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- One of the key references that ARROW has used in its strategic planning processes is Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organisations: A Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organisational Achievement by John M Bryson (1998: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publications).
- It is vital to find an expert who has the scope and experience to do a good environmental scan that sets the context for the strategic planning.
- Staff need to prepare well ahead of time by preparing quality programme evaluation reports.
- Developing with the partners a timeline of ARROW's journey with them is an important way to weave a common story and acknowledge that the organisation is a part of a larger movement.
PROCESS 10: Planning, monitoring and evaluation cycle
Introduction
By ARROW's Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) cycle, we mean all the processes and practices that the organisation has put in place to ensure that there is consistent, high-quality, planning, monitoring and evaluation of our programmes. We use the Logical Framework Approach to help plan, monitor and evaluate our work, with each strategic plan objective having its own set of outcomes, outputs, activities and indicators to measure progress.
Why was this process developed?
ARROW's PME system is based on the principle that ARROW is a learning organisation. The PME cycle harnesses learning, guarantees accountability, and ensures the effectiveness of our projects, programmes and policies. As such we see it as a critical component of maintaining the quality and relevance of ARROW's programmes, as well as of ensuring the organisation's longer term sustainability.
Key components of the planning, monitoring and evaluation cycle
Following are the key steps that ARROW takes in its PME cycle:
- Strategic planning: Every five years, the planning process is conducted and a Strategic Plan is developed following a systematic strategic planning methodology involving key stakeholders in ARROW's work. This includes an assessment of achievements of long-term organisational and 5-year objectives, and external and internal opportunities and threats.
- Developing the new Strategic Plan/Work Programme and Budget (WPB): A Strategic Plan (formerly called as Work Programme and Budget or WPB) is developed as a result of this strategic planning process. This then becomes the main document that guides programme implementation, monitoring, evaluation and fundraising purposes. All project proposals developed for fundraising are justified in terms of the Strategic Plan, particularly the relationship to the long-term objectives and Stratplan objectives, strategies and activities. The final Strategic Plan is approved by the Board before it is sent to funders or used as the basis to develop other funding proposals.
- Monitoring using the Strategic Plan: All staff, PAC and BOD are given a copy of the Strategic Plan upon joining ARROW. The Strategic Plan is referred to regularly by all staff in writing funding proposals, monitoring and evaluation processes, annual planning and evaluation.
- Individual staff work plans: Each staff member develops their individual annual work plan based on an agreed format and covering their core areas of work at the beginning of every year. Work plans are considered a very important tool for planning and organising work and time management and are used by both individual staff and their supervisor to monitor progress and appraise performance. They include what is required to be done in core work areas as well as organisational tasks and staff development.
- Section/project work plans: Project and section work plans for the various project teams in ARROW are developed at the beginning of the year. These work plans specify objectives, activities, outputs, timelines, and responsibilities in detail. Project and section detailed work plans were developed at the same time as individual work plans were first implemented.
- Annual Mega Work Plan: The annual mega work plan is the summary plan of all activities, outputs, time schedules, and personnel responsibilities which is approved by the Board, and used for planning, monitoring and evaluation purposes. The mega work plan format was initially developed as part of a requirement of a funder. It has now replaced the former annual calendar of activities and outputs as a more useful tool for planning, monitoring and evaluating.
- Approval of all plans by the Board: The Board are presented with the Annual Work plan and the Annual Budget for feedback, inputs and approval at the first Board meetings held by May every year.
- Quarterly Progress Reports: The PAC and Board also receive regular quarterly updates, as captured in the Quarterly Progress Reports (which may sometimes be delayed but always fulfilled).
- Annual Reports and Popular Annual Reports: There are two formats by which ARROW does its annual reporting. The first is a much lengthier document that staff use to pull together their own assessments of the work. The Popular Annual Report summarises and highlights the key lessons from each of the projects and section and is published and circulated to partners, funders and to other ARROW stakeholders; it is also available online. Both annual reports serve different purposes, and thus staff see the value of doing both reports.
- Project evaluations: Project evaluations are often in-built into most project proposals and done as a matter of routine.
- Annual evaluations: Annual Evaluations are conducted with both Staff and Board members present. This exercise known as the Annual Board and Staff Evaluation Retreat happens in December every year. Time is taken not only to evaluate the year past, but to also reflect upon lessons and insights.
- Mid-year evaluations: As of 2012, the staff also decided to re-introduce the mid-year evaluation in our PME cycle. We see it as important step in taking stock of progress of our work, evaluate whether we are strategic enough in our engagements, and to reorient activities, where necessary, towards more strategic ends.
- External evaluation: An external evaluation of the organisation is scheduled just before every strategic planning process takes place. This practice began about 5 years after ARROW was founded and continues to be a regular practice. The results of the evaluation to be in-built into the strategic plan.
Challenges experienced in the process
- The key challenge is scheduling time. There are many meetings that ARROW organises and attends, so gathering all the staff in the office at one time can be difficult.
- Reporting is also sometimes delayed, but better late than never.
- The evaluation component of some projects is inadequately budgeted for and hence the evaluation that occurs may not be as in-depth as others.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- Commit and stay disciplined to the PME cycle—keeping up the momentum of monitoring and evaluating all that is planned ensures more effective programming overall.
- Make time to reflect and evaluate your work. This makes the difference and gives us a strategic edge when our work is thought through carefully.
- Encourage cross-learning within the organisation, whether project-wise or section-wise. This will enable you to anticipate problems and create solutions.
PROCESS 11: External evaluation
Introduction
An external evaluation is a process by which an organisation's programme and/or operational implementation over a particular period is assessed by one or more external consultants against the organisation's strategic plan for that same period.
Inputs for this process may come from different sources, including staff, Board members, partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries of ARROWs programmes. ARROW first went through a form of external evaluation when a consultant hired by a core funder reviewed ARROW's programmes for a book being published on four partner organisations that were a part of the international women's health movement.
As one of Sida's strategic partners, ARROW was chosen for this project and benefitted from a programmatic as well as operational review by these consultants. Since then, ARROW has initiated three more external evaluation exercises, timed just prior to the end of our strategic planning cycle to ensure that the insights, lessons and recommendations from the evaluation consultants could be integrated into the next strategic plan. External evaluations are a critical source of feedback on our effectiveness and impact as an organisation. When selected well, external consultants can provide a valuable mirror through which the organisation can fully reflect on its programmes, processes and practices, and make improvements on its programme strategies and operations. It is very much in keeping with ARROW's commitment to high quality, and continuous innovation.
What is ARROW's external evaluation process?
Following are the key steps taken by ARROW in engaging in an external evaluation:
- Identification of parameters of evaluation: The critical first step in conducting an external evaluation is identifying what aspects of the organisation need evaluating and why. This needs to be done by the Board of Directors (BOD) with the Executive Director (ED), and with inputs from the Management Team (MT). The organisation needs to stay at the lead of the entire process of the external evaluation even if it is called for by a funder. The only way that this can happen is if the organisation is very clear on what needs evaluation, why, how, and with what expected outputs.
- Develop a clear Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Evaluation: The draft TOR needs to be constructed according to the parameters that have been decided upon by the Board. The TOR would specify if one or all of the organisation's programmes is being evaluated, what aspects of the operations, management and organisational processes will be included in the evaluation, and what methodology will be used. ARROW does not leave these decisions to the consultant. The TOR is negotiated with the consultant, but what ARROW's expectations are of the process are clearly outlined from the outset.
- Involve the staff early in the process: An external evaluation will require the inputs and time commitment of the staff. Thus, it is critical that the staff body is brought on board to the process early so that they are also invested in it, and see value for both themselves and for the organisation to have an external evaluation conducted. In ARROW, the staff discuss the TOR of the external evaluation in a staff meeting, and give inputs on their own expectations of the evaluation of their specific areas ofwork.
- Get Board approval for the TOR: Once the TOR has been revised and finalised, it is once again presented to the Board for approval. In ARROW, there is no question about getting Board approval, since the BOD leads the External Evaluation process in a complete sense. However, it is important to note this step, as some NGOs regard external evaluations as an operational matter, whereas it is in fact a matter related to the governance of the organisation.
- Identify the right consultants for the job: External evaluations are fairly intimate processes, since one or more external consultants go through in a fair amount of details the inner workings of the organisation's management, operations and programmes. As such, it is critical that the right people with the right skills and attitudes are brought into as consultants. Staff, Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) and the BOD are all asked to nominate consultants. Their resumes are requested and the set of resumes are forwarded to the Board. The Board compares these resumes to the draft TORs to determine the best consultants for the task. The Board is also directly engaged in the initial meetings with the evaluators where the context of the external evaluation is discussed and the organisation's expectations are communicated to them.
- Independence of the evaluators: While ARROW stays strongly in charge of the TOR and the parameters and depth of the external evaluation process once agreements have been made, and the consultants have been hired, they have full independence in the actual implementation of the process.
- Invest time, resources and process for integrating results: External evaluations are costly and require a huge output of resources including the time of staff and Board members. As such, it is critical that the organisation gives sufficient time and resources into considering, reflecting upon and then integrating, where possible, the insights and recommendations of the evaluators. This would mean time allocations in the meetings of the BOD, PAC, MT and Staff to fully discuss the findings of the consultant. The ED is also tasked with regularly reporting at Board meetings on how the recommendations of the evaluators are being acted upon.
Thus far, the reports that ARROW has received from our external evaluation consultants have been well worth the effort the organisation has put into the process. It has also enabled ARROW to better meet the needs of the region, and better raise core resources needed for our work.
Challenges experienced in this process
- Everyone involved in the process needs time to get to know each other and level off expectations. There have been times when these expectations were not clearly established at the start of the process, and the final product was different in content and form than was expected.
- Sometimes evaluators can see it as their role to probe into areas that the organisation has not included in the audit, and spend less time on the aspects of the evaluation that have been identified as critical. It is important to make sure that the consultants have a very clear brief on the scope of the evaluation.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- Trust building is essential in a process such as this. Invest in trust building between evaluators and the staff and Board. Objectivity is important but not compromised by investments in trust building.
- Give time to identifying within the organisation what exactly the organisation needs evaluated, why and how. Do not leave these decisions to the consultants, though their inputs are valuable.
- There is value in trying to gauge the impact of the organisation, even if it is quite difficult to do so for an organisations working for social change such as ARROW. Impact analysis provides data on the effectiveness of strategies and points to areas for better monitoring.
- Consultants who both have evaluation expertise within ARROWs strategic plan including organisational development and commitment to women's movement is essential. When there are two consultants, such expertise is better assured.
TOPIC 10: Ensuring quality and relevance of programmes
Introduction
ARROW aims to have a high quality and relevance of programming in all its aspects— from planning, to implementation and results achievement. Striving for high quality is one of ARROWs key principles and a core aspect of the organisational culture. This is because we firmly believe that only with high quality programmes can we achieve ARROW's vision, mission and long term objectives.
In ARROW, ensure the quality and relevance of programmes refers to all the steps that we take when embarking on any programmatic action, in relation to products, events, meetings or projects, to make certain that it is done in accordance to the organisation's core values, and is consistent with the high standards set for that action. One key way that ARROW does this is through the development, documentation and following of programme guidelines. Programme guidelines outline the specific processes needed to be followed in order to develop a high quality product.
Detailed programme planning and implementation guidelines (that are of high quality in themselves) are essential components of a sustainable organisation. They capture all the steps needed to produce a high quality output and the lessons learned over the years. We have invested in the development of programme guidelines for many aspects of our work. We do so because we recognise that both staff and advisors will change over the years and memory and experience will change.
Programme guidelines remain, however, and provide all the necessary information for the orientation of new staff members in developing products (and programmes) that are of a quality consistent to ARROW's previous products.
In this section, we introduce three resources as examples of ARROW's investment in programme implementation guidelines, two related to the publication of ARROW's bulletin, ARROW for Change, and one related to ARROW's policy development process.
Process 12: ARROW for Change bulletin development
Introduction
The ARROW for Change (AFC) bulletin is the flagship publication of ARROW and has been published since ARROW's inception. AFC was conceptualised and remains a practical, accessible and cutting edge resource. Its current readership has exceeded 7,000 electronic and print subscribers in more than 120 countries. The production of the AFC follows a set of guidelines that have been codified, and have been amended and strengthened in its clarity over the years. We believe that having very clear guidelines for the production of the AFC has been a critical factor in ensuring its quality over the past two decades.
Why was the process developed?
The AFC development guidelines was developed with the belief that clear, precise editorial and production guidelines will better ensure the quality and consistency of the publication, and enhance the capacity of the staff involved to meet up to the standards set by the organisation for the publication. They orient comprehensively new staff responsible for the AFC.
How was the process developed?
After a few years of AFC production, the Programme Manager at that time was tasked with writing out the detailed steps in the production of the bulletin. This document was discussed by the staff body, and approved by the Board. Over the years, production processes have changed as the AFC's content also evolved. Several important annexes were developed from 2007 onwards by the AFC Managing Editor/Programme Officer, in order to fill critical gaps in the AFC development guidelines.
Key components of the AFC development process
Following are the rigorous editorial and production processes, resulting from iterative reflection and continuous learning:
- Selection of the bulletin theme: The bulletin theme is proposed by the AFC Managing Editor, with programme staff input, at the annual ARROW PAC meeting. The bulletin Managing Editor reflects develops concepts and prepares the rationale of bulletin themes for presentation to the PAC. The rationale includes the advocacy need being addressed and how the AFC will contribute to agenda setting.
- PAC deliberation of the theme of the AFC bulletin: At the PAC meeting, members debate and further develop the conceptual underpinnings of each theme presented by the staff. The themes of AFC directly relate to the priority issues in ARROW's strategic plan and this ensures that the AFC never becomes an academic type of bulletin or one that panders to the special interests of staff or PAC members. As PAC's role is advisory, the bulletin editorial team are given leeway to utilise and/or change the bulletin's theme should there be programmatic or financial considerations.
- Constituting the Editorial Team: The editorial team comprises the ED, Programme Manager for Information and Communications and the AFC Programme Officer. In addition, other ARROW staff who have expertise in the theme may be invited into the Editorial Team for that issue. Where needed, the editorial team selects a guest editor per AFC issue based on the skills and expertise required for the theme, who then develops the concept note for the issue. The TOR of the Editorial Team is useful in this regard as there is a clear delineation of the role of each member in the team in relation to the production of the bulletin. New staff members are oriented to the AFC production, supported by briefing documents, so that they are able understand the aims and processes of the bulletin and contribute with confidence.
- Development of a concept note for the bulletin: Based on the themes that have been jointly identified by staff and PAC, a concept note is prepared. This is either done by the AFC Managing Editor, selected programme team members with expertise on the issue, or commissioned to thematic experts. It includes an overview on the thematic issue, which provides a rationale for producing a bulletin issue on the topic. The paper also provides the aims of the bulletin issue, an outline of the article line-up of the bulletin issue, proposed contributors and reviewers, and a preliminary listing of resources on the topic. The concept paper is further developed with input from the ARROW staff via a programme team meeting and PAC via email correspondence. Additionally, selected key stakeholders may also be asked to review the paper. Particular attention is provided to ensure diversity of contributors and reviewers, including from sub-regional expertise and age. The rationale section of the concept note is also occasionally published as part of the Working Paper series to share this great resource with the broader public.
- Coordination of contributors and contributions by the editorial team: The editorial team provides support to the contributors by providing them with the concept note; additionally they and the ARROW SRHR Knowledge Sharing Centre also support writers in searching for resources upon request. Given that the AFC bulletin is a platform for activists and NGOs from the region that may not necessarily have the needed language skills or experience in contributing in journals, the editorial team also provides additional support to these writers. These may include translation from their local language to English where there is internal skill, providing additional data and information through information searchers, and a very thorough language editing.
- Review of articles by external readers: ARROW has also developed a system for inviting the inputs of external readers who have both a commitment (since this is a pro bono task) and expertise on the thematic area of a given bulletin. Reviewers are provided the concept note, the background document on the bulletin processes and guidelines, are shown past issues of the bulletin, and are provided reviewers' guidelines. They may also opt to use a Reviewers' Feedback Sheet. The expert external readers' reviews of articles, together with that of the editorial team, comprise the feedback given to the contributors. The Managing Editor the works with the authors in finalising the articles.
- Revision and finalisation of the articles: The AFC Managing Editor works with the authors in finalising the articles. For all articles, the edited articles are shown to the writers before it is published.
- Final production processes: Once the articles are finalised, they are then given to the designer for layout (who may also be the AFC Managing Editor or an external consultant), proofread and revised, and printed.
Challenges experienced in using the guidelines
- The guidelines itself are clear, and no major challenges have been faced in using it. Challenges faced are more within the AFC development process itself, in that following the guidelines ensures a quality output yet this lengthens that time it takes to develop the bulletin. Given the various layers and levels of input required, as well as the usual delays in getting article submissions and reviews, a bulletin usually takes six months to produce.
- Having codified guidelines is important. However, making major changes in the development process (such as a shift from three issues a year to two or having an anonymity and confidentiality policy), and in turn making changes in the guidelines, entail a lengthy process of getting approval from various stakeholders, including the PAC and Board. Updating the guidelines may also not be prioritised, given the workload.
Tips: Lessons from using the guidelines
- While there are guidelines, be flexible, and be open to innovation and changes to improve processes. As issues are done, situations would arise that require further adaptations and making addendums. In the end, you want a quality knowledge product that pushes the SRHR agenda forward.
TOOL 16: AFC Editorial Team Guidelines
Introduction
The AFC Editorial Team Guidelines is a document that delineates clearly the roles and relationships of all those involved in the AFC Editorial team and the AFC production process. This document is an addendum to a larger document, namely, the AFC Bulletin Policy, Procedures and Content Guidelines. These documents, as well as other annexes, comprise the codified guidelines for the production of the AFC bulletin.
Why was the tool developed?
This tool was developed to ensure that all those involved in the production of the AFC were clear about their roles and their relationships with each other. We believe that this has strengthened ARROW's capacity to produce a high-quality, cutting-edge, well-researched and well-written bulletin every time.
How was the tool developed?
This tool was developed by the ARROW Managing Editor in 2008, in order to help clarify the roles of various members of the team, with input from the Programme Manager and Executive Director. This was also shared with the PAC. This document has since been revised as the bulletin development process continues to be sharpened.
Key components of the tool
Following are the key elements of this guideline:
- The Editorial Team: This section clarifies the composition of the editorial team and the role that the team plays together. The roles of the ED and the Programme Manager are listed and the relationships between each team member are also clarified.
- AFC Managing Editor: This section delineates all the roles that are played by the AFC Managing Editor throughout the production of the AFC. It provides a clear set of responsibilities and tasks to be undertaken.
- Guest Editor: This section clarifies how the guest editor is selected and the role that the guest editor is expected to play in coordination with the rest of the Editorial Team.
- Issue Coordinator: This section describes the role played by a consultant should s/he be hired to produce an AFC issue. Should such a consultant be hired, their relationship to the AFC Management Editor and the rest of the team is clearly stated.
- Programme Advisory Committee: The role of the PAC in the development is critical. This section lists out the roles and responsibilities of the PAC in relation to the AFC overall.
- Expert External Readers: This category describes people that are invited to read and comment on an issue of AFC based on their professional involvement and expertise in relation to the theme. This section lists out the expectation of these Expert External Readers and what in the draft copy they are expected to provide comment on.
- Designer/Layout Artist: This section describes the roles of the Designer/Layout Artist in relation to the production of the AFC.
How to use the tool?
This tool is used as a:
- Terms of Reference (TOR): This is used as a TOR for all those involved in the Editorial Team and in the production of the AFC
- Tool for new staff orientation: This is one of the key supporting documents that are provided to new staff that become involved in the AFC production.
Challenges experienced using this tool
- Using the tool is fairly straightforward, and no major challenges have been encountered. Having said that, the Editorial guidelines need to be revised from time to time, to reflect how the development process evolves and also organisational changes, and sometimes this does not get priority given the workload.
Tips: Lessons from using this tool
- The guidelines need to be shared in the beginning of the development of a bulletin issue with relevant staff and consultants to ensure clarity within the team, help manage expectations, and contribute to smooth working processes.
Process 13: Making policy positions on issues
Introduction
ARROW has been playing an increasingly visible role in the lead-up to major policy setting events, such as the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) +20 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) +15 global review processes. The organisation is strategically positioned to make key inputs in terms of policy advocacy and lobby for the integration of SRHR agenda in broader development agendas at both regional and international level.
It is therefore important that ARROW is clear on how we make policy positions in these different advocacy spaces, in a way consistent with our core values, and at the same time cognisant of our relationship with our partners, and the context in which our partners work.
How does ARROW make policy positions?
Following are the key considerations that ARROW keeps in mind when in making policy positions:
- As basic principles, the process by which ARROW develops policy positions attempts to be fully participatory, transparent and fair.
- Policy positions of ARROW are also developed in congruence with ARROW's Code of Ethics.
- Given that ARROW is a regional organisation that seeks to stay grounded in the working realities of partners, ARROW tries to stay cognisant of region-and nation-specific contexts in our deliberations.
- Policy position documents are written in such a way that they can be utilised by all ARROW's partners when advocating these same issues. As a principle, we always keep the usability of these policy position documents in mind when developing them.
Following are three of the key processes that ARROW uses to make policy positions:
- In international meetings: When developing statements that are delivered at international meetings such as the Commission on Population and Development, we try our best to ensure that these drafts are shared with organisations working with directly-affected populations when the themes of the said meeting are relevant to those populations.
- Within partnerships: In partnerships such as WHRAP, we develop issue positions in close cooperation with the partners who are directly involved in the advocacy partnership.
- With the PAC: When we are not in an international advocacy space or in a partnership project, issue positions are developed by the staff in consultation with the PAC and with the approval or delegation of the Board to ensure congruence with the organisation's mission and objectives.
- Through the AFC process: The AFC concept notes, are policy position papers of sorts and are discussed intensely by staff before finalisation and with extensive feedback from PAC as well. The AFC concept note often enables staff to build the repository of knowledge about the different issues, and the AFC posits a stance on the issue which is in line with the standards of being Southern-based, rights-based and women-centred.
- In response to strategic issues: Where there are key issues that ARROW needs a position on, the staff gather to discuss the issue and come up with a policy position. The method for doing this is by referring to internationally agreed upon standards of sexual and reproductive rights, while taking into consideration national positions of our partners and other regional positions.
Challenges experienced in this process
- There have been a few occasions when different partners of ARROW hold diametrically opposite positions on one issue, and as a regional organisation we have had to work hard to find common ground and common principles we can all agree to.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- The best positions come from doing the necessary research on the issue, to be able see one issue from several different viewpoints. Research the position thoroughly, and then work with partners to come up with a common positions.
- Policy positions made together with partners requires a great deal of flexibility. Be open and flexible.
TOPIC 11: Financial sustainability
Introduction
For ARROW to be able to achieve its vision and mission, and ensure the sustainability of its programmes and organisation as a whole, we need funders who are committed to providing funding for the period of the organisation's five-year strategic plan. We have sought to establish longer term funding relationships with funders who share a similar vision as ARROW, and now have a set of core funders who are supporting our work for the longer term.
Even so, financial sustainability is an important element of our overall sustainability, and a matter that we take seriously in our planning for the future. By financial sustainability, we mean having sufficient monetary resources to carry out our strategic plan and to run the organisation as per our Work Programme and Budget, and to be able confidently implement our plans for the future with continuity of commitment for funding. Given the funding environment, we realise that it is not easy to achieve financial sustainability, and ARROW certainly has some way to go.
Under this topic, we share two resources that ARROW has in place as it works towards financial sustainability: ARROW's risk management and risk planning, and ARROW's fundraising processes.
PROCESS 14: ARROW's risk management and risk planning
Introduction
Although ARROW is fortunate to have the support of some core funders, we are conscious of the fact that we has not yet achieved our financial sustainability goal of having our five-year strategic plan fully funded at the start of our Strategic Planning cycle. As such ARROW's Board and Management actively discuss issues of risk management and risk planning to anticipate and avert any possible financial crisis.
How was the process established?
The BOD, which oversees the organisation's finances, initiates discussions in its regular meetings. Through a process of careful discussion, the Board has put into place several steps to ensure that ARROW has the necessary financial buffer and capacity to tide over a financial crisis.
Key components of this process
Following are the key components of ARROW's risk management and risk planning process:
- Two -pronged approach to fundraising: While ARROW pursues where possible core funding for longer-term institutional support, ARROW also pursues project funding to be able to fully fund its strategic plan. Some aspects of the strategic plan have been “projectivised” in order to bring in sufficient funding, even as we maintain an active conversation with potential core funders.
- Broaden the base of funding: ARROW has several core funders and seeks, where possible, to broaden the organisation's base of support. This reduces the risk of the organisation running into financial difficulty should a funder pull out suddenly.
- Regular monitoring of ARROW's financial status: The Board is actively engaged in monitoring the funds available for minimum operations of core programmes. It also stays on top of the status of funding on the strategic plan. When needed, the Board makes decisions on how to cut on different programmes to reduce the risk of being caught out without funding for programme implementation in the priority areas.
- Retrenchment fund: ARROW has a regularly adjusted Retrenchment Fund to be able to cover the retrenchment benefits of all full-time staff members should their positions need to be terminated. Following is the guidelines for the calculation of the retrenchment fund as stated in the Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual:
When a staff position is terminated due to organisational restructure or closure, she will be entitled to a retrenchment benefit providing the staff has at least 12 months' continuous service, on the basis of:
- 10 days wages for each year of service if employed less than two years;
- 15 days wages for each year of service if employed for two or more but less than five years; or
- 20 days wages for each year of service if employed for five years or more. An incomplete year shall be calculated to the nearest month on a prorated basis.
Challenges experienced in this process
- It is difficult to raise money.
- Project funds never fully compensate for operational costs, and the fact is that there are fewer and fewer funders out there interested in core funding.
- Good staff cost lots of money. Managers cost more and are even more essential. It can be hard to push this rationale with funders.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- Keep risk planning as a regular item of the B oard meeting agenda. When it is regularly discussed as part of the financial oversight function of the Board, the organisation can build its financial resilience and always exploring options and possibilities.
Process 15: Fundraising: Working towards sustainability
Introduction
Fundraising from international development agencies is the only way in which ARROW raises the monetary resources that it needs to run its programmes and finance its Strategic Plan. ARROW decided that it not make economic sense to charge for our publications. It also went against with the core principle of our information dissemination, which was to put information and advocacy materials on women's SRHR in the hands of those who needed it the most, and influence policy agenda and commitments regionally and globally.
Fundraising is therefore critical to ensure the financial sustainability of the organisation and build its future.
What is ARROW's fundraising process?
The following are the key elements of our fundraising process:
- Research funding opportunities: The ED does research on the available sources of funding that match with ARROW's vision and mission, trying to understand well in advance what the potential opportunities may be. The potential donors are mentioned to Board members in advance, and their inputs on the potential donor are sought. This ensures that the ED does not put work into pursuing an opportunity that the Board may have objections to, for ethical or other reasons.
- Tailor approaches to respond to different categories of funders: ARROW has three types of funders we maintain relationships with:
- Current funders who we already have an established strong relationship and from whom we receive core funds: With these funders, it is important to manage relationships and expectations and to understand new developments with regards to their funding streams, and to consistently inform them about the developments in our own strategic direction and priorities. There's a mutuality of influence in this relationship.
- Large international development agencies that put out general calls for proposals, such as the European Union: With this category of funders, there is no personal forging of relationships as in the first category. Instead, ARROW responds to a general call for proposals and puts in a proposal if the thematic focus of the fund is in line with our core mission and our current strategic plan. Once successful, ARROW maintains communication with the assigned officers and builds a relationship.
- New funders that may not be quite as visible or as large, but have common interest in one or more of the areas work we are committed to: We make an effort to learn about their funding priorities and looking into whether we could work together.
- Consultative process of funding proposal development: When we are called to put in a proposal, proposal development can take anywhere between 1 month to 6 months (for larger ones). The ED calls either the managers or works with a consultant (where applicable) to help her with the substance of the proposals and works with these groups. The Executive Assistant then follows up with the necessary documents, such as the legal paperwork and other additional questions funders may have on the management and administration aspects. Funding proposals are developed through a consultation process with partners, PAC and the Board. The inputs and comments that we receive are integrated and the final proposal is sent to the Board for approval.
- Fundraising is guided by Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan is the main funding proposal of ARROW. The substance of all funding proposals are derived from this overall proposal and are directly related to the achievement of the Strategic Plan's objectives, strategies and activities, and the funds needed to do this.
Challenges experienced in this process
- The key challenge is costing a project adequately and fairly. When funders insist on paying specific staff posts, then to ensure that all costs, i.e., the benefits and work entitlements, necessary equipment, space and utilities are included in that costing is a challenge.
- Fundraising continues to be the main purview of the ED and Board members, and the Board may need to anticipate gaps in the ED's capacity to fundraise to ensure that the organisation has adequate funding to function. Managers also should be ready to assist with the writing of proposals and develop budgets.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- Start early and leave enough time to do the necessary as most funders are looking for project-specific logframes and budgets tied to logframes.
- In the current funding environment, it makes sense to construct collaborative projects rather than to see funding as a single organisation. This is much harder to manage, but much easier to raise funds for.
- Be truthful in all proposals and do not fall for the ‘lover's gap,’ where you only project the best of your organisation. Do not soften any edges to facilitate funding as it will come back to haunt you.
Introduction
ARROW knows that an organisation is as strong as the people that it has in it. Investing in finding the right people and then keeping these people motivated, inspired and committed to the organisation is a critical component of ensuring the sustainability of the organisation.
The staff, ED, PAC and BOD are all equally critical to the sustainability equation of the organisation. Even so, as a regional organisation with a large programme to implement, we are well aware that without competent staff members, ARROW could not sustain its programmes. As such, ARROW is committed to finding the right people to join the staff body of ARROW and to ensuring that there are opportunities for these staff members to learn and grow in their competencies, capacities and scope of experience. ARROW is also committed to investing in young people's leadership and growth in the SRHR movement. We see this broadly as part of our mission of strengthening women's movements and civil society, as young people are the future of the movement to promote and defend women's SRHR.
Under this topic, we share three somewhat different, but related resources:
- TOOL 17: ARROW's Human Resource Development (HRD) Policy, which is one of the many ways in which ARROW has consciously planned to invest in its staff body;
- PROCESS 16: Investing in young people, which shares insight into the commitment and interest ARROW has in investing in the next generation of SRHR activists; and,
- PROCESS 17: Succession planning, which describes ARROW's careful investment of time and resources into ensuring a smooth transition from one ED to the next.
TOOL 17: Human Resource Development Policy
Introduction
ARROW's Human Resource Development Policy was developed by and approved by the Board in 2002 in recognition that the contribution that high quality programmes make to the competent performance of its staff. The policy was drawn up as part of ARROW's commitment to the development of staff capacities in a planned and strategic manner.
The policy was also aimed at ensuring that ARROW's Management could make fair and transparent decisions about training and learning opportunities for staff members in a way that would promote an environment of support, creativity and high quality of work. At the same time that the HRD policy was approved, the BOD also approved an annual budget of 5 % of the total cost of staff salaries to be dedicated to resourcing the Human Resource Development Policy.
The HRD policy is an important component of ARROW's sustainability as an organisation, because we believe that the more opportunities that staff have to learn, grow and increase their level of competence, the more likely they are to stay in the organisation and contribute to the increased effectiveness of its programmes.
How was the tool developed?
The development of the HRD policy was initiated through a discussion in the BOD. One of the BOD members with both the skills and interest in HRD developed the first draft. It was then discussed by the staff body, and finalised by the BOD at one of its regular meetings.
Key components of this tool
The HRD policy encourages staff members to take active responsibilities in their growth and development in their capacities, to identify their need for further skills and knowledge to carry out their work better, and to actively seek opportunities both internally and externally to meet their needs. Likewise, the ED and Managers are charged with the responsibility of ensuring staff HRD by identifying the individual and group needs of their staff and determining appropriate interventions to meet these needs.
The HRD policy is comprised of three core sections:
- Principles: referring to ARROW's core beliefs and values in relation to Human Resource Development;
- Application: referring to:
- the mechanisms by which needs in the area of improvement and skills of staff could be identified;
- different development options that might be pursued to respond to those stated needs;
- the responsibilities of ARROW as a whole, the ED, Managers and individual staff members in identifying and acting upon opportunities for skills and knowledge improvement; and,
- the categories of courses that could be pursued, and a comprehensive breakdown of the all the processes, conditions and considerations related to decision-making on each of these categories.
- Limitations: referring to all the clauses related to the approval of skills and knowledge improvement opportunity and the conditions in which different benefits would not apply.
Initially, expenditure of the allocation of budget for HRD was first done on an ad hoc basis. Later, it evolved into a process where requests are made amongst staff and approved amongst them. The budget was then allocated based on a 70-20-10 ratio—70 to capacity building required in order to achieve organisational objectives, 20 for career development of individual staff that was not necessarily a requirement of their current job scope, and 10 for ad hoc activities at the end of the year if the budget had not been spent. Some of the ad hoc requests have included cooking, guitar and even chocolate making lessons.
We considered these requests because we found that administration and finance staff got relatively few opportunities for interesting skills development and these enabled them to benefit from the HRD allocation.
The copy of the full HRD policy is listed as Annexe 11 at the back of the publication.
Challenges experienced in this process
- In the early years, when the budget was really tight, we sometimes have had to compromise on the HRD allocation. However, we have done our best to keep this budget item as it is an important one for overall organisational sustainability.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- The HRD policy can only create a sustainable environment for staff if it is actually regularly reviewed and to be implemented actively.
- Encourage staff to become familiar with the HRD policy and take a high degree of responsibility for their own learning and growth.
- Include planning for HRD as a component of the annual appraisal process.
Process 16: Investing in young people
Introduction
ARROW believes in the importance of involving young people in its structure and programmes, and sees this as an important way to strengthen young people's leadership in the SRHR movement, and to promote the engagement of young people on SRHR and sexuality issues. As such, ARROW has developed a regional project that specifically focuses on working with young people on advocacy around young people's sexuality.
Investing in young people refers to all actions that are taken both at programme and organisational levels to engage young people in the work of ARROW, create opportunities for young people's exposure, expression and leadership in SRHR advocacy, and support their alliance building as SRHR advocates. This is congruent with ARROW's commitment to social justice, participation and fairness.
What are the key components in this process?
Following are some of the key components of ARROW's investment in young people:
- Commit to policy principle: ARROW developed a policy principle within the organisation in the late 1990s that it would make a conscious commitment to investing in young people. This policy principle guided the organisation in supporting the formation of a young people's network known as Network of Asia Pacific Youth (NAPY), and later on a sub-regional network known as Regional Youth Moving (RYM).
- Create spaces in formal structures: ARROW has reserved two places in the PAC for young people, one below 30 years of age, and the second ideally below 25 years of age. The Board is currently discussing expanding the five-member Board, and including a young person.
- Programme development: Projects have been developed with a strong youth component to ensure that ARROW maintains a focus on young people. One such project was the WHRAP-South East Asia project, where a young people's internship and mentoring programme was built into the design of the project (See Story 24).
- Invest in capacity building: Capacity building has been given by ARROW for the development of youth advocacy positions. One such advocacy initiative was the Bali Global Youth Forum, where ARROW invited young people from feminist networks and organisations in order to build capacities in evidence-generation and data analysis with regards to the issues of young people and the production of regional youth fact sheets that had a global reach.
- Support to young people's advocacy agendas: ARROW has also been critical in opening and creating space for young people's participation at the global and regional levels. ARROW brought together youth partners and Global South youth advocates together for the Youth Multi-stakeholder Consultation for the 4th High-level Panel of Eminent Persons in the MDGs. At the regional levels, ARROW facilitated global South youth partners' participation in the ICPD Beyond 2014 regional population conferences especially in the Asia-Pacific region where the youth forum was fully initiated and funded by ARROW.
- Young staff body: ARROW currently has a young staff body: 25 percent of staff are under 30; 37.5 percent of staff are between 30–40 years of age. Women under 40 years of age make up nearly 65 percent of staff and 75 percent of the MT, which makes ARROW a more youthful organisation than many of its regional counterparts.
Challenges experienced in this process
- Given the current global situation of reduced j ob opportunities, young people struggle to make both their commitment to the movement and their aspirations co-exist.
Tips: Lessons from the Process
- Young people really connect through technology so the newer ways of advocacy and mobilising through social media channels needs to be encouraged and built up!
- Young people who are developed through the organisation's capacity building programmes are often just forming in their ideas and perspectives and may have other aspirations and priorities. It is important to see support to their transitions into SRHR activists as a longer-term commitment, rather than a one off thing.
Process 17: Succession planning
ARROW's leadership change is a good practice—when I first became involved in ARROW, it was Rashidah, and then it changed to Sham, and in some organisations this can be a problem and every thing in the organisation changes, but not in ARROW. It was a smooth process, with minimal conflict and I think this is a process that can be shared with other people. We all need to know how to change leadership smoothly.
— Samia Afrin, Naripokkho, Bangladesh
What was also impressive to me was the transition from Rashidah as the Founder-Director to Sham, the new Executive Director. The transition process was a learning experience for me. Through ARROW's example, I learnt about the importance of preparing staff for a transition, and a careful search process being put in place and I am now doing the same for Likhaan.
— Junice Demeterio-Melgar, Likhaan, Philippines
Introduction
ARROW's succession planning process refers to the steps that ARROW has put into place to effectively manage the transition between one ED and the next in a smooth, stable manner. This process was written up as a guideline in the ARROW Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures, but also to serve the purpose of sharing it widely with other organisations going through similar transitions.
Why was it developed?
This process was thought through and developed by ARROW's BOD to ensure that there was sufficient planning and support for the process of transition from the Founder-Director, to the next ED of ARROW. There was an awareness in the BOD of the possibility of instability and/or lack of continuity of organisational mission, values and core programme, and thus, worked through very carefully the entire process, and actively supported the transition process.
Succession planning: The key steps
Following are the key steps in the process of ARROW's Succession Planning Process as outlined in ARROW's MAPP:
- Sufficient notice of stepping down
- The ED is encouraged to give a long period of notice, ideally between six months and one year.
- Put notice in writing.
- Leave when you need to—balance own needs and organisation's needs.
- Belief that there will be a good successor
- Confidence and optimism that there are people who can and want to do the job.
- Develop a good succession plan led by and approved by the Board
- A detailed written plan for all the steps of recruitment, hand-over, ex ED roles, supervision, orientation, appraisal.
- Implement the plan well.
- A good recruitment process with good tools
- Widely advertise the post. Follow up on all opportunities.
- Define essential and desired competencies using an agreed upon ED competency model.
- Conduct in-depth interviews at least twice for evidence of competencies.
- Be thorough about assessing the candidate. Follow through with a discussion with the referees given.
- Seek other, documentary evidence of competence and excellence.
- Discuss strengths, weaknesses and evidence with at least 3 referees.
- Put all the evidence into a comprehensive competency matrix that summarises all the information that is available on the candidate, including the interview, CV, and documents and publications and the interview with the referees.
- Be absolutely sure the candidate has the essential competencies to do the job well.
- Good introduction within the organisation
- Confidently introduce the person into the organisation especially their competencies.
- Be aware of staff views, concerns and anxieties and nip any negativity in the bud.
- Use the ED Competency Model as a tool to explain transparently the candidate's selection.
- Orientate well, ex-ED and staff
- Draw up a detailed orientation plan covering all areas of responsibility and aspects of the organisation that a new ED needs to know about.
- Provide a list of references materials and reading that will guide the new ED on the substantive aspects of ARROW's mission and programmes.
- Conduct a minimum of 2-weeks intensive orientation by ex-ED.
- Handover period
- Make sure that all management policies and procedures are well documents for the hand over. This process needs to start much earlier, even before official notice of resignation by the ED.
- Handover full authority to the ED to make decisions after the two-week orientation period.
- Make known that new ED now has authority.
- Probation and appraisal periods
- Steps, expectations and timelines of the probation period are known to all for learning.
- Two Board members to conduct a mid-probationary appraisal at the end of three months.
- New ED to be very clear of Board's assessment of both achievements and areas to improve.
- Plan to further improve competencies.
- Two Board members to conduct an end-of-probation appraisal of the ED.
- Written appraisal reports to be sent to the full Board.
- Realistic assessment of transition time needed to be able to fully address all responsibilities.
- The probation period in ARROW is understood as a period of learning, with feedback, timely appraisal and extra support to be able to accomplish one's tasks.
- Support and supervision
- Plan for amount a definite amount of time and process for support [ARROW decided upon 2 hours per week for three months, for example]
- Compensate Board members for time spent providing support during probation period, making it easier for new ED to request time [ARROW has annual budget for ED supervision from Board or external persons].
- Provide continuous feedback, especially positive feedback.
- Beyond the designated supervision period, the ED is free to approach any Board member for support/supervision and formal sessions can be requested any time.
- Clear roles for Ex-ED
- Ex-ED's roles in orientation and handover must be stated and clear to everyone involved.
- It is critical that the ED is fully familiarised with her Job Description (JD), as it outlines responsibilities as well as authority. The process of going through this JD thoroughly is essential for the ED to be fully able to take on her role.
- The Ex-ED is available for support/supervision but only at request of new ED and with agreement.
- The Board needs to continue playing a monitoring role through this period to keep close tabs of the progress of the transition.
- After handover is completed, the ex-ED has no special role.
Challenges experienced in the process
- There is a heavy investment of time and resources necessary for building trust. The transition is not simply between one ED and the next, but mainly between the Board and the incoming ED.
Tips: Lessons from the process
- It is critical that the organisation be proactive, strategic and detailed in its planning of this process. This influences the way all the steps above are carried out.
- It pays to pay close attention to the recruitment process.
- Conduct a very thorough interview process and use tools that will result in the recruitment of the right person.
- Include people who have the competencies to manage a leadership transition in a way that it is empowering for all and for the organisation.
- Provide clear, appropriate and useful definition of roles and responsibilities to be followed by both the outgoing ED and the incoming ED.
- The main role of the Board as a support to the ED was non-negotiable. The Board needs to be there to support the new ED fully.
- Put organisational systems of management and planning in place. The new ED will have a much better chance of succeeding in her job if the organisation's systems and structures are in good order.