Acknowledgements

As we celebrate our 21st anniversary, we are immensely proud, and grateful to publish this collaborative document developed together with women's rights activists and partner organisations that comprise the ARROW family.

This publication, the ARROW Resource Kit on Leadership and Management (ARK), was developed, with input from ARROW and ARK Steering Committee members, by Susanna George, a staunch women's rights activist, former Board member and supporter of ARROW's work.

We thank the ARROW Board of Directors and the ARK Steering Committee for conceptualising the ARK. We also thank Rashidah Abdullah, co-founder and Board Member of ARROW, and the Chair of the ARK Steering Committee for being the driving force behind the development of this resource kit. We also thank Di Surgey, who has been instrumental to ARROW's growth in her various capacities, including as member of the Programme Advisory Committee, Board and Infocom Task Force, for developing the initial concept note for this publication and presenting this to the ARROW Board during the initial stages of the project, and being such a resource when she joined the Steering Committee.

We are extremely grateful for all the time, effort, and patience they and the rest of the ARK Steering Committee members—Indu Capoor, Khawar Mumtaz, Maria Melinda Flores (Malyn) Ando, M. Prakasamma, and Sivananthi Thanenthiran—have dedicated to the realisation of this project. We also thank Di Surgey, Indu Capoor, Malyn Ando, Nalini Singh, Rashidah Abdullah, Saira Shameem, and Sivananthi Thanenthiran for supporting the ARK by either providing additional information, writing and/or editing the main text.

We appreciate all the time and effort put into this publication by our many colleagues, allies, board members, programme advisory committee members, partners, and friends from within the movement. Thanks to those who allowed us their valuable time and agreed to interviews or contribute stories: Di Surgey, Indu Capoor, Jashodara Dasgupta, Junice Melgar, Naureen Tawakal, Ninuk Widyantoro, Ouk Vong Vathiny, Saira Shameem, Samia Afrin, Shireen Huq, and Zhang Kaining. Among ARROW staff, these included Malyn Ando, Nalini Singh, Nor Azurah Zakaria, Rishita Nandagiri, Rosnani Hitam, Sai Jyothirmai Racherla, Shama Dossa, Shubha Kayastha, Sivananthi Thanenthiran, Suloshini Jahanath, and Uma Thiruvengadam.

We also thank the external reviewers for their valuable feedback and constructive comments: Betty Yeoh, Ivy Josiah, Loh Cheng Kooi, Maria Chin Abdullah and Yock Lin. We also acknowledge the ARROW staff for internally reviewing the ARK and providing feedback: Gaayathri Nair, Marisna Yulianti, Nadia Nantheni, Nalini Singh, Nor Azurah Zakaria, Paremela Naidu, Rishita Nandagiri, Shubha Kayastha, Susan Chin, Uma Thiruvengadam, Yap Bee Khim, and Yukari Horii.

We appreciate Malyn Ando and Rishita Nandagiri for their support in the production of the ARK, as well as Rosnani Hitam's support to the project in general. Ambika Varma also provided support to the project when she was with ARROW. We are grateful to Cezar Repuyan Tigno for copy-editing the resource kit. The design and layout of the ARK is the work of TM Ali Basir; Politeia Kody helped out with an earlier version.

Finally, this publication is made possible with the support of the Global Fund for Women, Nina Raj who donated funds, and ARROW's institutional donors, Sida and the Ford Foundation, who share with us our vision of SRHR for women in the Asia-Pacific region and globally.

This picture shows 3 women who are ARROW's founder and directors standing inside their office from a meeting in Kuala Lumpur.

A picture of ARROW’s leadership: past Executive Director Saira Shameem (left), current Executive Director Sivananthi Thanenthiran (middle), and Founder-Director Rashidah Abdullah (right) ; at a regional meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 2012.

Preface

We, the ARROW Board, have been exploring the idea of producing an ARROW Resource Kit on Leadership and Management (ARK) in the last ten years, and have been enthusiastically planning the ARK's publication over the last five. The process of developing the ARK presented an opportunity for ARROW Board members, Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) members and staff members to reflect on how ARROW has grown an organisation—what worked well and why, what hurdles we overcame, and what did not pan out, especially in terms of leadership and management—and to share these reflections and tools towards strengthening ourselves and supporting other NGOs. Such opportunities for reflection, learning and sharing are too scarce in the women's movement, perhaps this is why the ARK has generated great interest among partner networks and organisations.

Many NGOs, feminist friends, and partners from the global women's movement have been curious about ARROW's growth as an organisation. We have been asked questions like: How did you have such a smooth transition between Executive Directors (ED)? How did you find such a good ED? What is different about your Board? How do the ARROW Board, PAC, ED and staff maintain a harmonious working relationship? How did you manage to get such committed PAC members? Could you please share the TOR of your Board? What is feminist about the way ARROW has developed as an organisation?

We are happy to share our thoughts, processes and tools—our selected organisational development resources. As such, we exchanged TORs, appraisal forms, competency models and experiences regularly with many of our partners. Willingness to share knowledge is an essential working mode in ARROW.

Too often, activist groups are occupied with programmatic matters, especially advocacy work that requires immediate attention, that they put organisational development matters on the back burner. From our early years, we have decided to give equal priority to programme and organisational development, believing that a strong and fair organisation is the backbone of a strong and effective programme. We are pleased to say that at 20 years of age, ARROW has been assessed by our donors and external evaluators as strong in both aspects. Through the ARK process though, we realise that we need to put more time and effort now into organisational development as the demands of the programme and raising funds has been ARROW's priority in the last five years.

In ARROW's 2012–2016 strategic plan, we have the following inspiring organisational objective as guide:

To strengthen and sustain ARROW as on ethical, women-centred learning organisation, which utilises management practices that reflect feminist principles and contributes towards strengthening the women's health and rights movement in the region.

The process of developing ARK was not easy. Insufficient funding, the need for much voluntary input and the planning stretching over a number of years were some of the challenges we needed to overcome.

The completion of the ARK is due mainly to the perseverance and commitment of the Board and ARK Steering Committee, appointed by the Board in 2010, and the indispensable support of a dedicated staff. We have been very fortunate and grateful that Susanna George, a Board member for six years, agreed in 2013 to be the ARK's writer and editor. The ARK Steering Committee, composed of Board representatives, staff, and Friends of ARROW planned and monitored the work and reviewed drafts. Much appreciation also goes to all the story and writing contributors. Special thanks go to Di Surgey who joined the Committee in the middle of 2013 and who did the first concept paper on ARK in 2009.

Our work, experiences and tools in leadership and management has been documented in the ARK. Now, we would like to discuss them within the ARROW family and with partners and allies so that we can all learn more. Presently, there are thoughts of having discussions on governance and leadership using the ARK to spark sharing of other experiences, specifically on Board processes, ED-Board accountability, and ED transitions, among other management matters. It is thus with much excitement and anticipation that we take this first step of sharing the ARK with you.

This picture represents a smiling young woman from Cambodia.

A Cambodian woman

List of Abbreviations

ACAT	Advocacy Capacity Assessment Tool
AFC	ARROW for Chonge
ARK	ARROW Resource Kit on Leadership and Management
ARROW	Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women
BPFA	Beijing Platform for Action
BOD	Board of Directors
COE	Code of Ethics Policy
COI	Conflict of Interest Policy
COIR	Conflict of Interest Register
COLA	Cost of Living Allowance
CPD	United Nation Commission on Population and Development
DAWN	Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
GYF	Global Youth Forum
ICPD	International Conference on Population and Development
ILO	International Labour Organisation
IRRRAG	International Reproductive Rights Research Action Group
IWHC	International Women's Health Coalition
IWHDCN	International Women's Health Documentation Centre Network
KPI	Key Performance Indicators
LACHWN	Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network
MAPP	ARROW Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual
MT	Management Team
NGO	Non-governmental Organisation
PAC	Programme Advisory Committee
POA	Programme of Action
PME	Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
RaFH	Institute for Reproductive Family Health
SC	Steering Committee
SAARC	South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SRHR	Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
TOR	Terms of Reference
WABA	World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action
WCW	United Nations World Conference on Women
WHO	World Health Organisation
WHRAP	Women's Health and Rights Advocacy Partnership
WPB	Work Programme and Budget
YHDRA	Yunnan Health Development Research Association

Introduction to the ARROW Resource Kit

This picture represents a meeting of ARROW Resource Kit Steering Committee members, with other colleagues and activists from Malaysia.

ARK Steering Committee members meeting with Malaysian colleagues and activists to review the ARK in August 2013.

What is ARK?

The ARROW Resource Kit on Leadership and Management (ARK) is a compilation of some of ARROW's most effective governance and management tools and resources that have been developed by the organisation over the past 20 years. The Board of Directors (BOD) of ARROW first discussed the idea of this publication nearly a decade ago, and although enthusiasm for the project never waned, it took a significant amount of energy, resources and time to finally get the project off the ground. We see ARK as part of ARROW's long-term objective of strengthening women's NGOs and the women's movement at large.

History of the resources of ARROW

All of what we offer in this book are tried and tested resources that have been developed by us, with generous contributions from our BOD, Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) members, partners and consultants. ARROW started out with core policies and procedures in place, and continued to build its documentation of policies and practices over the years. In a BOD meeting in 2007, it was decided that all the key documents that outline policies, guidelines and procedures, namely the Work Conditions and Entitlements, Management Manual, Human Resource Development, and Administration Procedures should be pulled together into one large document.

This new document, known as the ARROW Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (MAPP) was developed over a period of a year, and finalised in April 2008.

The MAPP is seen as a working document that is reviewed and revisited on a fairly regular basis. There are still new policies that are being developed even as this publication is completed, and we are aware of a number of areas for further policy development. We commit to this process, because we believe that all organisations need clear policies, procedures and practices to carry out their work of social change effectively. A transformed society begins with a transformed organisation.

What is the purpose of the ARK?

For at least a decade now, ARROW has received information requests from other organisations, particularly women's activist organisations and other NGOs from the Asia-Pacific region and beyond, to share some of our lessons, tools and processes that have supported our growth. Our partners and colleagues in the movement wanted to know what led ARROW to being an effective and successful organisation, able to maintain excellent staff and Board, do cuttingedge work and also raise funds needed to expand our programmes and reach.

Many have expressed a desire to learn from ARROW's model and to cross-fertilise ideas and tools that might strengthen their own organisations. Over the years, we have responded to requests for Terms of References, selection criteria, meeting formats and evaluation criteria for various bodies and positions within the organisation, staff competency models, recruitment, appraisal and rewards systems, Conflict of Interest (COI) policy, Code of Ethics (COE), financial and budget management systems, and so forth.

Who is the intended audience of the ARK?

Our foremost audience includes our partners and colleagues in the women's and sexual and reproductive health and rights movement. We hope that by documenting and sharing of our organisational practices, we can support and encourage other organisations interested in enhancing their own.

We also see this publication as a resource for leaders and managers working in women's movement or movement-based organisations. We believe that an awareness of the need for congruence between values and organisational practice and the capacity to enhance this congruence is a key strength of effective organisations.

This publication may also be useful to scholars and organisational development practitioners who are interested in ARROW's practices as an example of one women's NGO journey towards more effective organisational governance and management.

Voice from a user

Some of our colleagues in the women's movement have expressed how they have benefitted from ARROW's resources. Here is one such sentiment:

AWAM [All Women's Action Society, Malaysia] has benefitted from ARROW's resources because we've been consulting Sham since she left ARROW, and she's introduced a number of tools that were from ARROW. We have been discussing in AWAM how to better focus our strategy and plans and she introduced us to the planning, management and evaluation (PME) cycle. We've also tried to implement ARROW's staff meeting process, and now start our meetings with expressing what was good in the past week, what could be better as well, who we appreciate and what challenge we faced. This exercise was effective to build rapport and address conflicts. I think that the ARROW Resource Kit will provide useful doable activities which can really help the organisation.

— Betty Yeoh, Senior Programme Manager, AWAM

Why now?

ARROW turned 20 years old in 2013. In these 20 years, ARROW has grown from a bold vision of two feminist activists for a regional research, information and documentation centre on women's health to influence change in health policies and programmes to a reputable respected regional organisation with capacity to effectively advocate women's sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) across the Asia-Pacific and globally. Recognising the importance of sharing what we have gained and learned from others through our own organisational journey, we see our 20th year anniversary as an opportunity for us to share with our partners and colleagues in the movement the best of what we have learned through our experience so far.

Why ARROW?

We believe that ARROW is one of relatively few women's organisations in the region that have devoted much time into thinking through organisational policies, processes and practices. We have always believed in investing time, thought and resources into developing organisational processes and practices that are fair, equitable, clear, transparent and accountable. We see genuine investment in the organisation's core systems of governance, accountability, efficiency and sustainability in the medium- and long-term as essential for building and sustaining effective advocacy organisations.

ARROW deliberately chose a hierarchical structure of organisation, even though we were founded by feminists, because we believed that we could better ensure accountability and efficiency towards responsibilities and programme implementation if our decision-making processes were unambiguous, transparent and functional. We pay attention to our practices and try to keep checking them against our core values, which we believe are essentially feminist. We have also created much space for reflexivity in our organisational life, so that we do not forget our core values, and check against them on a regular basis.

As such, we believe that our processes and practices are imbued with our values, and believe that this makes the difference. One might review this publication and say that there is little that distinguishes us from a mainstream organisation, but we believe that our investment in “how” we do things makes us different. So we're feminist, not so much as a declaration of ideology, but rather in “how” we do what we do.

Who are we?

ARROW is a regional women's non-profit organisation based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Since our establishment in 1993, ARROW has been working on advancing women's SRHR, and empowering women through information and knowledge, engagement, advocacy and mobilisation. We work in partnership with national level and other Global South regional partners to generate evidence for advocacy, including monitoring international agreements related to women's health and rights. We also work with them to form strong advocacy platforms that seek to influence national and regional policy agendas on women's health, sexuality and rights, and to hold governments and international agencies accountable for commitments to ensuring women's SRHR. While we are based and operating primarily in the Asia-Pacific region, we also do global advocacy and information and communications work, which has significance and impact.

ARROW's core values

Our core values are the foundation of our practice. We see them as fundamental in all our organisational processes, from simple logistical arrangements to strategic decision-making and planning processes. Although they were only codified a decade after we began as an organisation, we believe that they have provided an inner compass to our governance, management and leadership practices since our founding.

ARROW's core values are:

• Commitment to quality: Striving to produce high quality in everything we do (both in terms of outputs and processes) as high quality is critical to effectiveness.
• Fairness: Respecting peoples' equal right to participate and to be treated equally well, and to develop as human beings regardless of their differences in position, education, religious beliefs, personality, body size, class, race, sexual preference, etc. (this value is an important component of equity), and to remain secular and non-sectarian.
• Social justice: Striving to recognise and address the various power hierarchies of class, gender, race, sexuality etc., and being aware of power relations and the ways in which patriarchy and other social and economic systems manifests themselves, and the importance of the origins of the feminist movement in subverting patriarchy.
• Generosity: Sharing information, resources and time wholeheartedly and responsively, rather than hoarding or clinging, believing that ARROW will not be depleted by sharing.
• Honesty: Being straightforward and to tell the truth, but to ensure appropriateness of venue, delivery and methodology, and to be aware of and listen to all perspectives.
• Innovation or creativity: Constantly doing new things or trying new processes in order to be more effective.
• Participation: Consulting and involving staff, the BOD, PAC and partners in strategic and operational decisions and sharing information in the belief that more informed and active contributions will lead to organisational effectiveness and quality as well as work satisfaction and commitment to ARROW.
• Transparency: Being open and honest about information and decisions as critical to achieving real participation and fairness.

Each of these values have been further elaborated in our COE with clear definitions of what each value would translate to in terms of behaviours and actions in the context of ARROW's work and activities.

Beliefs of ARROW

ARROW strongly believes in the principles of generosity, transparency and participation. These are foundational to the kind of work we have chosen to do, and the way we have organised both internally and in terms of our programmes and partnerships. ARROW started out with a regional information and documentation resource centre because we believed that there was a wealth of information in existence that was not reaching many women's health and rights advocates who needed it the most. We continue to run our programme with the same ethos, believing that our best work happens when we are able to put strategic, timely, well-researched information in the hands of SRHR advocates and policy decision-makers.

This publication follows in the same spirit. By sharing freely and openly of what could be defined the best of our organisational practices and tools with our partners and colleagues, we are keeping aligned with our core values of generosity, transparency and participation. Some of the resources we offer are fairly simple, but they have worked for us, and we hope that they can also work for others. We see this publication as a contribution towards our collective task of building stronger, more viable and effective organisations and social movements.

How to use the ARK

The ARROW Resource Kit on Leadership and Management has been divided into four chapters. Each chapter begins with an introduction that explains the rationale of the theme of the chapter, and why it is being shared. Each chapter, except Chapter 1, contains a number of topics under which we cluster our resources. Each topic is introduced and linked to the main theme of the chapter, and as much as possible, we provide our values that underpin this.

Under each topic, a number of resources are included, either in the form of a process or a tool. Each process and tool is introduced, and we explain:

• How and why each resource was developed;
• What are the key components or steps of that resource;
• How the resource can be used;
• Challenges faced using the resource; and,
• Tips from lessons learned.

In this manner, we hope to make each resource more accessible to our reader. Where the tool or process being shared is longer than 2–3 pages, it is provided in full as an annexe.

Stories are also provided to illustrate the use and effectiveness of the processes and tools and to describe the experiences of the people of ARROW.

Chapter 1 provides a brief history of the founding of ARROW as an organisation, the context of the women's movement that ARROW was responding to when it started, and a summary of our key contributions to promoting women's SRHR in the past twenty years. We also highlight specific events in the history of ARROW in terms of organisational growth and development.

Chapter 2 looks at the theme of power and participation, and clusters our resources under five topics: i) Ethical Frameworks for Organisational Practice; ii) Board Governance; iii) Executive Director (ED), Management Team (MT) and staff accountability; iv) PAC; and, v) Valuing staff. This chapter shares ARROW's governance and management structures, and how our accountability processes are structured so power is mediated and participation is maximised.

Chapter 3 looks at the theme of partnership, and clusters our resources under three topics: i) Selection of partners; ii) Sharing power in partnerships; and iii) Capacity building: Nurturing and sustaining partnerships. While our experiences in partnerships are very diverse and rich, we have focused on a few key topics that illustrate the way we have succeeded in building our partnerships over the years.

Chapter 4 focuses on the broad theme of building for the future, and clusters our resources under four topics: i) Strategic planning, monitoring and evaluation; ii) Ensuring quality and relevance of programmes; iii) Financial sustainability; and, iv) Investing in people. In this chapter, we present what we have identified as the core components of ARROW's organisational sustainability strategies and the key resources under each component that we have found useful in building a sustainable organisation.

Chapter 1

History of ARROW

This picture shows an ARROW meeting of Board members in discussion for Executive Directors' core competencies.

Board members in action at an ARROW meeting to discuss the Executive Directors' core competencies in Langkawi, Malaysia, 2003.

As ARROW moves ahead, I think it is important to learn from the past. In the past, ARROW valued partnerships and people greatly, engaged in deep listening, and were open to learning from their partners. ARROW has a phenomenal history, and looking hack to it is like looking in a rear view mirror—constantly watching through it helps you move forward.

—Indu Capoor, Former PAC and Board member and Founder-Director of CHETNA, India, an ARROW organisational partner

Introduction

This chapter provides a short history of ARROW's founding and growth as an organisation, and the context that it was responding to when it was founded. We also mention some of the key contributions that ARROW has made since its inception. We feature in this chapter a number of stories from women who have been with the organisation since its founding. Their stories offer a glimpse from a personal perspective of what it was like being a part of ARROW's genesis and growth in the early years.

At the end of this chapter, we list some of our highlights in organisational development terms, focusing on significant moments in terms of our governance, staff body, structure, processes and partners. This set of milestones describes the journey we have taken in setting up ARROW.

Foundations of ARROW

We decided to keep the name as Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) even though from the first year our focus was women's health because we liked the symbolism, and the idea of strategically reaching targets. We always knew that we wanted to be strategic, and to have impact and be associated with movement and the process of social change. So even though our name did not refer to women's health issues specifically, we thought the name had the kind of dynamism that we were aiming for as an organisation.

— Rashidah Abdullah, Founder-Director of ARROW

ARROW was founded in 1993 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia by Rashidah Abdullah and Rita Raj, both women's activists and friends who had worked on women's reproductive health and development in different contexts for the previous two decades. Prior to founding ARROW, Rashidah and Rita had been close colleagues for five years working on the Gender and Development (GAD) Programme of the Asia-Pacific Development Centre (APDC). During that period, Rashidah and Rita were co -writers of the seminal publication, Asia and Pacific Women's Resource and Action Series: Health, a resource handbook series developed by feminists in the region as a regional women's movement project.

Through the course of collecting materials for this publication, they came into contact with many women's health activists, organisations and groups in the Asia-Pacific region, and soon recognised the informational, resource and capacity building needs of other women's activists. Both women also had experience of working in local and national-level family planning programmes and women's rights organisations in Malaysia. Through this ground level experience and through their interactions with NGO leaders, key government officials, the media and international development organisations, they sensed a strong need for regionally relevant information sources to provide the latest research, analyses, perspectives and action. They decided that together they would establish an organisation that would address the gap at the Asia-Pacific regional level for better interchange of systematic information, evidence-based research and practical resources necessary for policy advocacy on women's health and rights.

ARROW began with a regional women's reproductive health and rights resource centre project, while still operating within the APDC GAD programmes, then based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Soon after, in January 1993, ARROW was set up as an autonomous, nonprofit NGO with funding support. The organisation's own resource base was also established, including office space, equipment and staff. When the first funding proposal was developed, ARROW had only two full-time staff, the documentation officer and documentation clerk, and the two co-Directors on a part-time basis.

From its very founding, ARROW was rooted in the women's movement and had a strong vision of strengthening women's movement building. In its first proposal for funding, the Founder-Directors identified the following objectives : i) improving the capacity of women's NGOs in the Asia-Pacific to influence, health, population and family planning organisations at national, regional and international levels; ii) providing practical information and resource materials to strengthen initiatives to reorient health, population and reproductive health policies and programmes with women's perspectives and gender analysis towards an improvement in women's health and rights; and, iii) facilitating the generation and utilisation of new information and analyses on policies, programmes and organisations related to women's health through collaborative research. Achieving these objectives included monitoring of the actual implementation of related UN conferences.

It was ARROW's involvement in the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo and in the United Nations World Conference on Women (UNWCW) in Beijing in 1995 that consolidated its focus on SRHR advocacy (See Story 1). Soon after both these international events, ARROW became involved in the monitoring of the ICPD Programme for Action (POA) and the Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) and producing materials that provide research data in support of evidence-based advocacy programmes of partners in the region. From its first research project to assess the extent of government action and commitment towards the implementation of the ICPD POA in the areas of women's reproductive health and rights was initiated in December 1995, ARROW has grown from strength to strength in its leadership of ICPD monitoring work, now leading a global South-South post-ICPD research and advocacy initiative.

ARROW's objectives have evolved over the years, and our activities have expanded in breadth and increased in their depth of complexity. We now work in 15 countries in the region and continually strengthened our partnership in these countries and beyond. Our current work spans information and communications, knowledge exchange and transfer, evidence generation for advocacy, consistent monitoring of progress towards relevant international commitments made vis-à-vis women's health, capacity building, partnership building for advocacy, engagement at international and regional forums, and enhancing the organisational strength of both ARROW and partners.

The women's SRHR movement in the Asia-Pacific

ARROW was formed as the international women's health movement gained momentum in the early 1990s. Women's health rights activists were frustrated with population policies focusing on population control rather than women's reproductive health and rights. Women from the South brought to the discussion the importance of locating women's health rights in the larger context of economic, social and gender inequality and oppression. In the Asia and Pacific region, women's health activists were pushing for a broader definition of national health programmes and for women's perspectives and needs to be taken into account.

All over the Asia-Pacific, women's health and rights groups were already working on women's health issues, and trying to influence the health agenda of their countries. In some countries, such as Australia, Bangladesh, India, Japan and the Philippines, the advocacy for women's right to quality health services and the right to decide about reproductive issues, such as childbearing, choice of contraceptive technology and sexual protection, childbirth practices and sexuality, was already a strong force. In others, activism around these issues was just beginning.

In 1990, the 6 th IWHM held its meeting in Manila, Philippines, with the theme “In Search of Balanced Perspectives and Global Solidarity for Women's Health and Reproductive Rights.” It was an important moment for women's health rights activists in the Asia-Pacific to meet and to share their analyses and understanding of women's reproductive health and rights. ARROW's Founder-Director, Rashidah Abdullah, attended the IWHM and met up with inspiring women's health activists who would become ARROW's long-term partners and friends.

The ICPD in Cairo, Egypt held four years later in 1994 was a historic moment for the international women's health movement, a moment when feminist activists were able to win a change in a paradigm shift in thinking around population issues to a focus on women's reproductive health and rights. Organisations like CRR, Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN), International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), and Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network (LACHWN), amongst others, were part of the strong feminist lobby that pushed for the dramatic wins in the ICPD POA. A small ARROW delegation went to the ICPD, and participated and co-facilitated a number of workshops there. The achievements made in Cairo by feminist and women's health activists were affirmed and confirmed during the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW), held in Beijing, China in 1995, and this was a really boost for activism on SRHR.

ARROW saw a niche for regional information dissemination and documentation, and research and monitoring for policy advocacy. Both the ICPD and the FWCW put women's reproductive health and women's human rights on the global agenda. Government and international development agencies could not ignore the demands for these issues to be centrally a part of national agendas, and all over the world, national machinery were being developed to put in place policies and programmes to implement the commitments made in both the Cairo and Beijing conferences. ARROW rode the huge wave of passion and commitment present for these issues, and joined forces with others who recognised this as an opportune moment for sea change for women's SRHR.

Key contributions of ARROW to date

For those people to whom ARROW is new, we provide a brief introduction. Today, ARROW occupies a strategic niche in the Asia-Pacific region and globally as a South-based women-led organisation that has a women's health and rights focus; a gender, rights-based and Global South framework; and that utilises interlinked strategies of evidence generation for advocacy, strategic information and communications, which promotes knowledge exchange and transfer, and advocacy, capacity building and movement building through partnerships in order to achieve SRHR for all.

Following are what we believe are our key contributions to promoting and defending women's SRHR to date:

• ARROW is the only regional organisation globally that has consistently conducted five-yearly research and monitoring of the ICPD POA. It has also monitored the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 5a and 5b on women's reproductive health. In the lead up to 2014–2015, we realised it is critical to bring together voices of a larger constituency, whose lives will be impacted by the proposed new development framework being negotiated. We thus worked together with other regional and global organisations to develop regional reports and a global South report, to influence and enable the ownership of the SRHR agenda in such a way that any action plans around SRHR beyond 2014 will take into account the voices from the Southern women and young people, and their lived realities. ARROW leverages monitoring as a political tool to hold governments, donors and international agencies accountable to national and international commitments, and has produced high-quality reports that have been used as evidence for policy advocacy both regionally and globally.
• ARROW, together with its partners, has developed and refined alternative gender-sensitive and rights-based indicators and frameworks of monitoring international commitments related to SRHR. Our 2013 publication, An Advocate's Guide: Strategic Indicators for Universal Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, provides a core set of indicators that are internationally cross-comparable that aims to help advocates better understand the process of concrete evidence generation on universal access to SRHR. We have also previously produced a substantive database of gender-sensitive, pro-human rights alternative indicators known as the SRHR Database of Indicators and made it accessible online. This framework of 79 cross-country ICPD-SRHR indicators provides comparisons of the status of sexual and reproductive health and rights in 12 Asian countries. In 2011, this database was up scaled to 47 countries from the Global South covering Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa and the Pacific. This database was made freely available to SRHR activists both regionally and globally until 2012 to conduct their own research and produce the data necessary to do evidence-based policy advocacy and awareness raising in the own local, national and regional contexts. This will be made available again once updated.
• ARROW for Change (AFC) bulletin, ARROW's flagship publication, has been providing some of the most cutting-edge and innovative analyses on the issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights in Asia and Pacific region and beyond since its inception in 1994. The bulletin is distributed to at least 5,000 print subscribers and 2,000 electronic subscribers, and reaches policy makers, decisionmakers, researchers, student, activist organisations and SRHR advocates working 124 countries globally. AFC has been cited or featured in numerous other organisations' publications and websites and used in a variety of ways, including as teaching material for university students as course material in training workshops and as reference materials for policy and programme changes. Since 2008, AFC has also been translated into 11 different Asian and Pacific languages, and been well-received by our partners in different national contexts who are able to use these materials in their training and advocacy work.
• ARROW, together with its partners, has established a long-term partnership programme known as the Women's Health Rights Action Partnership-South Asia (WHRAP-South Asia) initially in five countries and (currently it is now working in seven countries). Together, they have been working for the last decade to improve the access to health services for some of South Asia's most marginalised community women. The programme has resulted in significant changes in the attitude of service providers, increased responsiveness of health providers and health systems, and the establishment of networks to empower grassroots women to demand for improved health services and accountability by government health officials. This innovative partnership has been recognised by the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and has invited the WHRAP-South Asia Taskforce to be in consultative status on issues of maternal health.
• In 2009, WHRAP was also rolled out in China with three partners from Shanghai, Beijing and Heilongjiang with a focus on building strategic alliances and strengthening the capacity of Chinese organisations for enhanced advocacy on Chinese migrant women's SRHR. Further to this, in 2010, WHRAP expanded to include seven countries in South East Asia (Burma, Cambodia, China (Mekong Region), Lao PDR, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam). Partners in WHRAP-South East Asia are focusing their advocacy on Young People's SRHR, Education and HIV with a focus on calling for Comprehensive Sexuality Education and Youth-friendly Services. Results over the years include significant changes in the attitude of service providers, increased responsiveness of health providers and health systems towards the needs of marginalised women and young people in programme implementation areas, and the establishment of networks to empower grassroots women and young people to demand for improved health services and accountability by government health officials. At the sub-regional levels, WHRAP has emerged as strong platforms to advocate for marginalised women and young people's SRHR.

Highlights of ARROW's organisational development

1990

Rashidah Abdullah attends the International Women's Health Meeting in Manila, Philippines to publicise the publication that she and Rita Raj jointly authored, Asia Pacific Women's Resource and Research Series: Health, while still at the Gender and Development Programme of the Asia Pacific Development Centre.

1992

Rita and Rashidah applied to formally register ARROW as a non-profit organisation.

ARROW, represented by Rita, participates as country coordinator for an ethnographical research for the International Reproductive Rights Research Action Group (IRRRAG). The findings were disseminated in preparation for the ICPD, the Women's Voices meeting in Brazil and at the World Conference on Women, Beijing in 1995.

ARROW becomes a part of the International Women's Health Documentation Centre Network (IWHDCN), an international network to digitise documentation centres consisting of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective (USA), CIDHAL (Mexico), Isis Internacional (Chile), and Sos Corpo (Brazil), and funded by Ford Foundation.

1993

ARROW is officially registered. Rita and Rashidah joined as part-time Co-Directors and Directors of the Board. A funding proposal, Changing Health Policies and Programmes: Regional Information Support on Women's Health, which included monitoring of ICPD implementation, was sent to Sida.

ARROW participates in the Asia-Pacific Regional NGO Forum in Manila, Philippines in preparation of the Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women and co-organised a workshop on women's health with the World Alliance on Breastfeeding Action (WABA). There, Rashidah and Rita met many inspiring activists at this event who would later become ARROW PAC members and partners.

1994

The first PAC meeting is held in Kuala Lumpur, with Adrina Taslim, Ana Maria-Nemenzo, Di Surgey, Nasreen Huq, Shanthi Dairiam, Sundari Ravindran and Vanessa Griffen as members.

ARROW participates in the ICPD NGO Forum in Cairo and co-organised a workshop on ICPD monitoring and indicators with the CRR and CHANGE.

1995

The planning meeting for ARROW's first Resource Kit is held in Malacca, Malaysia. Participants include: Ambiga Devy (Malaysia), Hilda Saeed (Pakistan), Indu Capoor (India), Irihapeti Merenia Ramsden (New Zealand), Lee Nham Tuyet (Vietnam), Marilen J. Danguilan (Philippines), Nasreen Huq (Bangladesh), Ninuk Widyantoro (Indonesia), Ninuk Sumaryani (Indonesia), Sue O'Sullivan (Australia) and Sumie Uno (Japan).

The ARROW for Change bulletin is first produced. Its first issue, entitled Challenges after Cairo, focused on what needs to be done post-ICPD, and the task of monitoring recommendations from the ICPD POA.

ARROW participates at the FWCW and was on three panels: the ICPD, Research, IRRRAG research, and Strategic Information panels in Huairou, China.

1995–96

Rita resigns as co-director and stays on the Board for another year. She was replaced by Zainah Anwar as Board member at the end of 1996.

1997

ARROW holds its first Women's NGO Consultation in Bangladesh, hosted by Naripokkho and funded by Ford Foundation. A PAC meeting followed immediately after.

The Women's Access to Gender-sensitive Health Programmes Research Project planning meeting is held. LACWHN and Women's Health Policy Project (South Africa) members and Sundari Ravindran were resource persons.

ARROW's Southeast Asia Beijing Monitoring Project was initiated with ARROW (Malaysia), Cambodian Midwives Association (Cambodia), CHAMPA (Lao PDR), Research Centre for Gender, Family and Environment in Development (Vietnam), Serika Perempuan Anti Kekerasan (Indonesia), WomanHealth Philippines, Inc. (Philippines), and Women's Health Advocacy Network (Thailand) as partners.

1998

A personnel capacity assessment was done by Di Surgey, PAC member, as a consultant. Recommendations and action included new managerial positions and structure and Job Descriptions of all staff members were made more comprehensive.

1999

ARROW's first external evaluation is conducted by a Sida-commissioned researcher whose review of ARROW was included in a book, Women Weaving Webs, containing organisational reviews of three other regional and international women's health organisations.

ARROW's Board expands from two to four members. PAC members Di Surgey and Indu Capoor joined Zainah Anwar and Rashidah Abdullah.

ARROW receives funding from KULU/Danida for a regional information and advocacy capacity building project in four countries, namely, India, Pakistan, Vietnam and Philippines.

Following a personnel capacity assessment exercise, a new management post is created. An additional layer is created in the organisational structure through the formation of a Management Team consisting of two managers and the Executive Director.

The Netherlands Organisation for International Development Cooperation (NOVIB, later Oxfam Novib) becomes a new core funder. Prior to this funding, NOVIB funded the Regional Consultation Meeting, held in Dhaka, Bangladesh, November 1997.

2000

ARROW is awarded Special NGO Consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Commission.

2001

ARROW holds its first regional strategic planning meeting in Port Dickson, Malaysia. The meeting includes all ARROW's partners from 1 countries, namely, Cambodia, China, Fiji, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

ARROW's second External Evaluation is completed with Caridad Tharan and Josefa Francisco as its evaluators.

The Board of Directors is further expanded to five people, with Rashidah Shuib joining as its fifth member.

2002

Zainah Anwar leaves the Board after two terms and is replaced by Marina Mahathir.

A PAC meeting with new members, including Chee Heng Leng (Malaysia), Junice Demeterio-Melgar (Philippines), Raijeli Nicole (Fiji), and Socorro Reyes (Philippines), is held in Chiang Mai, Thailand.

2003

ARROW's first Annual Board-Staff Planning and Evaluation Retreat is held. This was one of the recommendations from the External Evaluation in 2001.

ARROW rolls out the 3-year WHRAP project with six national partners in four South Asian countries, namely, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. This initiative is supported by Danida through the Danish Family Planning Association.

2004

ARROW commissions an organisational consultancy, Pelita Leadership Sdn. Bhd., to conduct research and develop a competency model for its Executive Director position.

2005

Rashidah Abdullah resigns as Executive Director and remains on the Board of Directors. Saira Shameem joins ARROW as its second Executive Director from January 2005. The successful transition was commended and we were asked to share our experience by Malaysian women's NGOs.

Di Surgey and Indu Capoor complete their two terms as BOD members. Marina Mahathir completes one term as BOD member. They are replaced by Susanna George, M. Prakasamma and Junice Demeterio-Melgar.

2006

ARROW's second Strategic Planning meeting with our partners in the region is held on Perhentian Island, Malaysia. ARROW's new critical areas of concern are pregnancy and childbirth-related deaths and disabilities; equity issues in the face of globalisation, privatisation and health sector reforms; and the impact of religious and political conservatisms and fundamentalisms on SRHR.

WHRAP-South Asia Phase II started, and the Steering Committee was established, signalling increased ownership of and joint accountability to the partnership. The South Asian Regional Task Force on SRHR, a unique collaboration between NGOs and parliamentarians, was also born.

Rashidah Shuib completes two terms as BOD member. She is replaced by Ninuk Widyantoro.

ARROW conducts its second self-initiated External Evaluation with Ranjani Murthy and Vimla Ramachandran as its evaluators.

2007

ARROW implements its 2007–2011 Strategic Plan.

The ARROW appraisal system was revamped with input from staff, and the competency models for managers, officers and assistant officers were added.

ARROW developed the framework and indicators for the ICPD+15 monitoring and research project, involving 12 countries in Asia-Pacific.

ARROW embarked on an initiative to provide country-level technical support to the Gender Mainstreaming Action Group of Cambodia's Ministry of Health to gender sensitise its health system.

ARROW plays a critical role at the 4th APCRSH in India, conducting a highly-attended satellite session on religious fundamentalisms and its impact on SRHR, as well as sessions and presentations on WHRAP-South Asia and an exhibition booth.

2008

To celebrate ARROW's 15th anniversary, we moved to a new office which offers a more comfortable working space, and celebrated with allies and friends.

In line with ARROW's vision of partnerships across the Asia-Pacific region, ARROW commences a research and advocacy project in China with support from Oxfam Novib, referred to as WHRAP-China. Meanwhile, the WHRAP-South Asia's mid-term evaluation showed the strategy continued to have results; the partnership also published a status report on maternal health and young people's SRHR in South Asia, and successfully engaged the SAARC.

ARROW's Information and Communications Strategy is developed, presenting present and future trajectories for ARROW's work in this area. We hired a full-time website officer, signalling the new importance of an effective online presence for information and advocacy. Several translations of the AFC bulletin issues were also done strategically due to demand, increasing reach and impact.

ARROW launches its regional monitoring, evidencegeneration and advocacy project with all ARROW partners in the region for ICPD+15.

ARROW developed individual key performance indicators to help assess the way we do our work.

2009

ARROW produces a 12-country regional report on ICPD+15, which opened doors for interventions in various regional and global spaces, including at the UN Asia-Pacific High-Level Intergovernmental Forum on ICPD+15 and the Global NGO Forum on ICPD@15 (where we were the vice-chair of the International Steering Committee). Meanwhile, national partners hold policy dialogues and dissemination seminars in nine countries to build support for and advocate for change in specific SRHR issues.

WHRAP-South Asia holds its external evaluation for Phase II of the project.

For the first time, ARROW produces a DVD of all of ARROW publications from inception to date, an innovative product that signals a change in the way we promote and share our knowledge products.

2010

ARROW holds its third Strategic Planning meeting with all its key partners in the region in Penang, Malaysia.

ARROW hosts the global meeting, Repoliticising Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in Malaysia, which was attended by 50 feminists and SRHR activists.

WHRAP-South East Asia commences with support from Oxfam Novib with partners in seven countries: Burma, Cambodia, China (Mekong Region), Lao PDR, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam with a focus on Young People's SRHR, Education and HIV.

ARROW publishes an all-time high of 30 publications, all of which were included in the ARROW Publications DVD 1994–2010 edition. We also developed a Southern database on SRHR.

ARROW launched the MDG 3 and 5 Watch campaign.

Utilising evidence from our ICPD+15 report on 12 Asian countries, we successfully made interventions at 29 key global and regional events, including the UNFPA NGO Global Consultation, the 8th International Dialogue on Population and Sustainable Development, the UN Summit of the MDGs, the World Youth Conference, the Global Maternal Health Conference and the ASEAN People's Forum.

2011

WHRAP-South Asia starts its 3rd phase, and expands from four countries (Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan) to six with the addition of Maldives and Sri Lanka. WHRAP-South Asia partners also attend the first global partners' meeting hosted by DFPA in Copenhagen.

ARROW's Information and Documentation Centre was rebranded to become the ARROW SRHR Knowledge Sharing Centre (ASK-us).

Junice Demeterio-Melgar, M. Prakasamma and Susanna George complete their two terms as Board members. Khawar Mumtaz, Maria Chin Abdullah and Sunila Abeysekara join the Board.

ARROW launches its ICPD+20 monitoring and evidence generation initiative with women's networks across the global South regions. We partnered with the Central and Eastern European Women's Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (ASTRA), Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR), LACWHN, and World Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA).

ARROW holds a dialogue with Burmese organisations working on SRHR and HIV and AIDS issues in order to assess suitable partners for WHRAP-South East Asia.

ARROW establishes a page on the social networking site Facebook, to serve as a platform for dynamic interaction with its ‘fans.’

ARROW, in collaboration with the World Diabetes Foundation (WDF), implemented a ground-breaking initiative establishing the links between diabetes and women's SRHR.

ARROW conducts its third self-initiated External Evaluation with Lin Chew and Mary Jane Real as its evaluators.

Ninuk Widyantoro completes her two terms as Board member. Naeemah Khan joins the Board.

2012

Sham resigns as Executive Director. She is replaced by Sivananthi Thanenthiran from January, formerly ARROW's Programme Manager for Information and Communications.

ARROW begins our latest Strategic Plan, which will continue until 2016. Our vision, mission and long-term objectives have been reframed to ensure currency, relevance and clear articulation of our response to the needs of the region.

ARROW undertook a revamping our identity, including rebranding of our logo and of the look of our online and print resources and publications, including the AFC bulletin and the website.

ARROW strengthens its online presence and engagement in social media for information and advocacy. Aside from being on Facebook, we are now also on Twitter.

ARROW shifts our accounting system to Navision, and strengthened our internal financial controls system.

ARROW holds the Asia-Pacific regional CSO meeting for ICPD beyond 2014, bringing together more than 130 key stakeholders from different movements, the UN and NGOs.

ARROW initiates the Global South youth monitoring and advocacy work with ASTRA Youth, Allianza Juvenes, World YWCA and EIPR. We co-chaired the Bali Global Youth Forum, which resulted in a revolutionary Bali Declaration that has been widely disseminated by UNFPA as an official UN document.

The WHRAP-South Asia Theory of Change was mapped out for the first time, and Phase III baseline exercises were conducted in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan.

To fully address our critical issues in our Strategic Plan, ARROW begins several initiatives exploring the interlinkages of SRHR with various issues, and engages in cross-movement work to strengthen our advocacy. These include for climate change (supported by Population Action International until 2013), migration (funded by International Development Research Centre until 2013), and food security and poverty (funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation until 2014).

2013

The WHRAP-South Asia Continuum of Quality Care position paper was published. The mid-term evaluation was conducted and planning for Phase IV began.

ARROW is involved in all of the ICPD beyond 2014 global meetings and processes, as a key organisation working on women's SRHR. Five regional ICPD+20 reports from the Global South were published.

ARROW holds a cross-movement meeting with advocates and representatives of 16 organisations and networks working on addressing poverty, food sovereignty, the right to food, women's rights and SRHR, which resulted in the Bangkok Cross-Movement Call on Poverty, Food Sovereignty and SRHR.

ARROW and partners made significant interventions at the 6th Asia Pacific Population Conference and its associated NGO forum, as part of the steering committee, resulting in a very good outcome document.

ARROW, with national partners, embarks on an EU-supported initiative to strengthen its partnership across 15 countries in Asia, on the issues of universal access to SRHR and addressing the impact of SRHR. We also begin an initiative exploring the interlinkages of climate change, religious fundamentalisms and SRHR, supported by Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD). Sida renews its commitment to fund our work as our core funder until 2016.

Chapter 2

Power and participation: How we built a strong organisation

This picture represents an ARROW meeting on Strategic Planning with its partners.

ARROW and partners at the Strategic Planning Meeting, May 2010, Langkawi, Malaysia.

I was initially quite taken aback by how hierarchical [ARROW's] structure appeared. Over time, however, I observed that ARROW was extremely skilled at drawing participation. From the outset, ARROW organised activities and experiences outside the meeting hours that brought all women ‘to the table’ through common laughter, leisure, liberation, learning and, yes, wonderful food. Activities and venues were carefully chosen to maximise opportunity to learn about each other's cultural, social, economic and political realities...Participation was valued and Rashidah and Rita, from the outset, were skilled not only in listening but also in showing that a participant had been heard. Acknowledgement of contributions during meetings was clear and persistent. All contributions were treated as equally respectable. Validation was a hallmark of participation.

—Di Surgey, former Programme Advisory Committee and Board member

Both Rita and I felt strongly that the organisation needed a sound management system, and so from the very outset, we were keen to put into place systems, structures and processes that would create a healthy, productive gender-sensitive workplace. One of the first policies we worked on was the Staff Work Conditions and Entitlements, which outlined leave, maternity leave, flexi hours, etc. We wanted to have an organisation where rights were clear and staff well taken care of. Also appointment letters and job descriptions were well done so job responsibilities were clear. The appraisal process of the probation period and the annual appraisal really helped clarify to the staff member what the organisation required of her.

— Rashidah Abdullah, Founder-Director and Board member

Introduction

Power and participation are interlinked concepts in any organisational setting. Power in the context of a group or an organisation refers to being in possession of the controlling influence in the group and of its outcomes.

Participation, on the other hand, refers to the act of sharing in the activities of the group. Power always exists as a dynamic in any group or organisation and it is a matter of whether it is acknowledged or not. Acknowledging and mediating power in a conscious way can lead to a higher level of participation in an organisation.

ARROW's founders drew from their previous experiences in NGO work when they formed the core beliefs that:

• ARROW would be much stronger and more effective if it was able to gain insights and ideas of very committed feminist activists with expertise in information, research and advocacy in the development of its women's health and rights programme.
• Asia and Pacific activists, including ARROW's founders, wanted and needed to exchange experiences and resources and continue to learn/improve their capacities both for the development of their own organisations as well as the women's movement.
• ARROW needed to be structured accordingly to encourage participation of activists within the organisation as well as outside it.
• Clear roles, responsibilities, accountability and participatory decision-making processes were needed in ARROW structures and practices both to lessen the chance of unnecessary role conflict and to mediate power. The founders of ARROW believed that participation was an essential value by which contributions could flow into the organisation, and ARROW could benefit from people's creativity and commitment. They also recognised that participation was also a central piece in creating a democratic organisation in which the rights of people to fairness and justice could be better realised.

However, they also understood from experience that power needed to actually be acknowledged and distributed in a conscious way, such that decisionmaking could take place in a way that there was minimum conflict, and maximum participation. They made the conscious decision to order ARROW's structure in what could be defined as a traditional, hierarchical structure in which the legitimate power of decision-making would be assigned, defined and clarified throughout structures and processes like Terms of References (TORs) and Job Descriptions.

They believed that a clear, transparent and accountable hierarchy was the best way to ensure that the responsibility for decision-making was clearly distributed within the structure.

In ARROW, therefore, the BOD holds the greatest amount of legitimate power, but it also delegates a very large degree of decision-making power to the Executive Director (ED) who in turns delegates some degree of decision-making power to Managers who in turn delegate some degree of decision-making power to staff. The ideal is that the work that happens within each of the structural elements of the hierarchy is in congruence with strategic and operational decisions made “up the line.”

In ARROW's case, the work also responds to inputs made by a ‘check and balance’ element in its structure—a Programme Advisory Committee (PAC). This element is not part of the vertical structure of decision-making power. It does, however, temper the risk of programme-related decisions being made in a vacuum or left to the individual ED, programme managers or staff. Rather than holding traditional legitimate decision-making power, the PAC brings relevance and currency, both components in the power to influence within ARROW.

ARROW puts a great deal of effort into making sure that everyone from its BOD to the ED, manager, staff members and PAC are all very clear about their roles, their scope of responsibility and to whom they are accountable. The organisation has invested in committing to writing much of these agreed relationships in TORs so as to reduce ambiguity, and increase the possibility of a high degree of accountability.

ARROW also believes that the clearer everyone is on their roles in the organisation, the more effectively they are able to participate.

With this background, this chapter shares processes, tools and stories related to the structural pillars of ARROW's organisation that mediate power and facilitate participation: the BOD, ED, Management Team (MT), staff and PAC. It shows how the principle of participation figures in all of these structures and relationships and how clear definition of roles, responsibilities and accountability are expressed. The four topics included in this chapter are:

• Ethical framework for organisational practices;
• Board governance;
• ED, Management Team and staff accountability; and,
• Valuing staff

Each topic provides some ARROW context, history and concepts followed by resources in the form of processes or practices and tools that we have used in ARROW to ensure both participation and the mediation of power within the organisational structure. Some stories accompany the resources to provide personal insight onto the use of these tools or processes.

TOPIC 1: Ethical framework for organisational practice

It is possible to develop organisational policies that benefit, not constrain, the organisation. Policies can be written in a way that lives up to our ethical ideals, while at the same time evolving tools and processes that enable greater effectiveness and efficiency within the organisation. It takes greater time and effort, gives more voice and space for argument from members, but in the end, results in a higher quality of both process and results. There is also a greater ownership of the organisation's systems and regulations, leading to consistent practice, as people feel the direct benefit of doing so, and a more enjoy able journey for activists who not only ‘do’ solidarity work, but are in solidarity themselves.

— Saira Shameem, former Executive Director of ARROW

Introduction

Why ARROW decides to do things in certain ways extending from the structures we create, meeting locations and meeting processes we choose, and policies and practices we use to orient new staff and Board members varies according to beliefs and principles valued and comes down to one thing—our ethical framework. ARROW is pleased that its ethics are up front now so that these can be followed consistently in all aspects of our organisational life.

At the centre of ARROWs ethics is our organisational core values. The ethical framework of ARROW is made explicit by the policies that we have developed. These policies, spearheaded and approved by the BOD, are foundational, and provide the organisation and all the people associated with it an inner compass that guides all of our work and actions.

Under this topic, we share with you two organisational tools which we have found very useful in providing an ethical framework to ARROW—TOOL 1: Code of Ethics and TOOL 2: Conflict of Interest Policy.

TOOL 1: Code of Ethics

Introduction

The Code of Ethics (COE) is a policy document that describes the ethical values believed in and committed to, both individually and collectively, by ARROW's BOD, staff and PAC members. The COE is used to guide all the deliberations, decisions and actions of the organisation. Under each core value, there is an elaboration of how this core value is expressed in all the key business and activities of the organisation.

Why was this tool developed?

The COE was developed because the BOD believed that a strong organisation needed “a feminist compass” that would guide the all aspects of the work of the Organisation. ARROW had always been guided by a strong set of values, but these values were implicit in way the organisation was run. This tool was developed to codify and find common agreement on ethical standards that guides both individual and organisational attitudes, behaviour and actions.

How was the tool developed?

The values stated in the COE were developed through in-depth conversations between and within the Board and staff body over different BOD-Staff retreats and special staff sessions in the period between 2002 and 2003 and encoded in the ARROW Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures (MAPP) Manual. The COE was refined over the years and the current version approved in 2010.

Code of Ethics: How to use the tool

ARROW's Code of Ethics lists eight core values:

• Commitment to quality;
• Fairness;
• Social justice;
• Generosity;
• Honesty;
• Innovation or creativity;
• Participation; and
• Transparency.

One of the reasons that the COE acts as a useful guide is because each of the eight core values are further substantiated as to their specific application in different work contexts. Following is an example of how the value, Participation, has been unpacked to express its full meaning in the organisation's context:

Participation

We commit to:

• Ensuring that ARROW includes participatory processes in all aspects of the work with the BOD, PAC, staff and partners, in particular strategic planning and evaluation.
• Sharing chairing of meetings and the other facilitative work of the organisation so that leadership is not the responsibility of only a few.
• Planning and implementing participatory processes into all aspects of our work, believing that people have a right to participate in decision-making and that quality, effectiveness and ownership will be better.
• Asking for input into draft agendas of all meetings and seminars etc. so that others can contribute to identifying issues and content.
• Sharing facilitation of leadership in meetings so that others will experience this responsibility and also develop their capacities.
• Ensuring we do not dominate in meetings, talk too often, or put people down to the extent that this hinders the participation of others.
• Encouraging the participation of peers, staff, partners and PAC and BOD in the planning, implementation and evaluation of ARROW.

The elaboration of each value in this clear manner is one of the key reasons the policy is a useful guide in different organisational contexts. Even if a particular situation is not described in the details of each core value, there is enough information within each value to make informed decisions

The full statement of the Code of Ethics is available in Annexe 1.

How to use the tool

Since the COE has been put in place, the policy document has been used in the following ways:

• An ethical guide for daily interpersonal relations and conduct in the office, between staff and BOD, within the BOD and in relationships with partners, donors, meeting participants and all people encountered by the staff and BOD in the work of ARROW.
• As the basis for the principles and conduct behind policy and procedure development
• In personnel appraisals.
• In defining competencies and capacity building training for staff and BOD.
• As a guide for any kind of principled or ethical decision-making.
• As a guide to decision-making for conflict resolution, grievances and misconduct assertions
• As an ethical guide in strategic planning processes as well as activity planning.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

The tool needs to be referred to more consciously in the decision-making processes of the BOD. While the BOD refers to key principles such as fairness and honesty, it is not often linked to what is in ARROW's COE.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

The COE needs to be given to new staff and Board members with opportunity given to read and discuss it as part of an orientation or induction programme. Without such a programme, the COE may not be known nor understood.

TOOL 2: Conflict of Interest Policy

Introduction

The Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy is a policy document that delineates the conditions and situations where conflicts of interest may arise in the organisation. These include contracting, transactions and arrangements, financial or otherwise, which could be construed as being in the interest of a Board member, ED or a staff who has decision-making power over that matter. It also provides details of the procedures and mechanisms to deal with violations to the policy.

Why was the tool developed?

The COI Policy was developed in order to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the BOD and staff keep in mind and protect the interest of ARROW and its beneficiaries at all times.

How was the tool developed?

The COI was developed as a result of dialogue around ensuring accountability and transparency in contracting Board members as consultants to the organisation. ARROW's Bylaws state that although there are no sitting fees for members of the Board, payments to them for professional services are acceptable.

ARROW thus wished to clarify and make transparent its processes in regards to commissioning work from its Board members and other volunteers. The COI policy became an important tool to ensure that this was carried out in a completely ethical and transparent manner. We also were aware that a COI is a standard, necessary policy for any organisation.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• The challenge in such a process is the time it takes to build the amount of trust enough for members of the Board or staff to question whether something or someone should be acknowledged on the COI registry, without fear of backlash or resentment. If taken seriously, and time is invested, discussing COI matters in a candid manner becomes a process of building trust, raising the ethical standards of the Board and/or staff body.
• The policy, like all ARROW policies, needs to be an important part of new staff and Board orientation programmes. There have been some misunderstandings due to lack of staff orientation.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• ARROW began using this policy as soon as it was approved. Within a year, it had become a part of the organisational practice.
• Include COI in all orientations as well as policy and procedural handbooks.
• Staff members participated in the process of development this policy and they were very familiar with the tool. Implementation, thus, was easy.

TOPIC 2: Board governance

Introduction

As with most registered organisations, ARROW has a Board that governs the organisation. Governance refers to the structures and systems and core understanding that guide how an organisation is run. The Board decides on these structures, systems and core understanding through its careful deliberations, and provides the framework that ensures that the right decisions are made in relation to policies and the organisation's direction. Given that ARROW is an organisation founded by feminists guided by core values of participation and transparency, ARROW's governance process aims to be:

• Consultative, in that everyone who has an interest in a decision, and has an opinion is heard;
• Decisive, in that once the decision has been made, the decision is understood, documented and implemented throughout the organisation; and,
• Straightforward, in that it is clear who is responsible for what, and how a particular policy or position relates to the organisation's mission as a whole.

The ARROW Board is capable and clear in ensuring accountable and transparent governance processes. The Board anchors the organisation, and is seen as the ultimate decision-making body in ARROW. Final decisions on all important issues are made by the Board. Under this topic, we share several key resources that ensure that the ARROW Board is able to carry out its function effectively and in line with the organisation's core values. These include:

• TOOL 3: Board Terms of Reference;
• TOOL 4: Criteria for Board selection;
• PROCESS 1: Board Meeting Process; and,
• TOOL 5: the Board Appraisal Tool

TOOL 3: Board Terms of Reference

Introduction

The Terms of Reference for the Board of Directors outlines its role and functions and is enshrined in ARROW's Bylaws.

Why was the tool developed?

The Board TOR was developed to provide clarity of function, roles, responsibility and work of the BOD such that every Board member has a full understanding of what is required of her when she agrees to take up the role. It is essential that these responsibilities are clear, specific and written in a document. Without this, the lack of clarity between the roles of the Board and ED can lead to ineffective Board governance.

How was it developed?

The two Founder-Directors of ARROW discussed the need for a TOR, and then developed a draft. This draft was further nuanced and redefined when the Board was expanded in 1999.

Key components of the BOD Terms of Reference

The BOD Terms of Reference contains alisting of the roles and functions of the BOD. It also includes the responsibilities of the Board including:

• Financial oversight: Including approval of annual operational budgets and audited accounts, five-year budgets as part of the Strategic Plan, approval of all annual financial statements and financial guidelines, approval of the setting up of funds and investment portfolios, purchase of property, and salary reviews and approval of changes in salary structure; monitoring of income and expenditure and cash flow quarterly according to the approved budget.
• Personnel matters: Including the approval of changes to the staff positions, in terms of numbers and structures; appointment, supervision and annual appraisal of the ED; overseeing grievance procedures if related to the ED, approval of any re-employment after retirement, and approval of termination of any staff, besides fixed-term contracts.
• Strategic planning and work programme oversight: including the review and approval of the 5-year Strategic Plan and Work Programme and Budget, review and approval of Annual Plans, review and approval of changes to ARROW vision, mission and long-term objectives, review and approval of Annual Reports and reports to funders, approval of the TORs of External Evaluations, review and approval of major funding proposals for core funding and projects.
• BOD and PAC policy development and approval: including the development and approval of BOD and PAC Terms of Reference, decide on appointment of new BOD and PAC members, and second term extensions of both BOD and PAC members.
• Complying with the requirements of the Companies Act: including the review and amendment of the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association, signing of any BOD Memorandum to the Registrar of Societies, appointment of auditors, signing the Annual Submission of Accounts to the Registrar of Companies, sign Notice of BOD and Annual General Meetings (AGM) and the minutes of BOD and AGM Meetings.

The full Terms of Reference of the BOD is listed as Annexe 3.

How to use the tool

The Board TOR is used in the following ways:

• As an orientation to new Board members on their roles and responsibilities as a Director of ARROW
• To clarify roles and responsibilities of the Board in relation to decision-making on matters that arise in the organisation
• As an orientation to new staff members, including the ED and Managers, on the lines of accountabilities as delineated in the roles and responsibilities of the Directors of ARROW

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• Being aware and disciplined enough not to raise matters for which the ED and not the Board is responsible and accept that people have their own style.
• Knowing what are strategic issues, both programme and organisational, for the Board to pay attention to.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• The Board TOR needs to be given to each new Board and staff member and time allocated for discussion on this in orientation programmes.
• The Board meeting agenda can be structured using the areas of responsibilities in the TOR. This reinforces clarity on Board responsibilities and ensures governance of all areas is being practiced in Board decision-making.
• The TOR is the main document to be referred to when doing the annual Board appraisal.

TOOL 4: Criteria for BOD selection

Introduction

The Criteria for BOD Selection provides a clear guide for the BOD in their consideration of nominations for new Board members. The process by which the Board selection is made has been documented in the MAPP to provide clear guidance to the Board, ED and Management Team in matters of Board selection and recruitment.

Why was the tool developed?

Given the central role that the Board plays in the overall function of the organisation, the choice of Board members has always been of utmost importance to the organisation. Having clear Criteria for Board Selection reduces the possibility of choice based on subjective or personal preferences, and focuses the deliberation of nominees on the qualities and capacities necessary to achieve the goals of the organisation.

How was the tool developed?

The criteria for BOD selection was developed by the Board of that time in preparation for the BOD expansion from two to five members. A draft was developed by one of the Board members, discussed and then approved.

How to use the tool

• The Criteria for Board Selection can be formulated into a matrix format which is used to assess each nominee to the Board. While the criteria will differ from organisation to organisation, what is critical is that there is agreement prior to the nomination of Board members what common criteria will be used to assess nominations, and what method of decision-making will be employed to come to thorough, fair and participative agreements
• Likewise, the procedure for the Selection of Board members may be tailored to suit the needs of your organisation. What is important is that the roles and responsibilities are clear to anyone coming into the organisation.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• Prioritising time for the orientation of new members of the Board and organisation has been a challenge. An orientation kit for both Board and staff members would help.
• In last five years, members' time availability for meetings has lessened. This is inevitable when activists very engaged in social movements are recruited as Board members.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Call everyone's attention to the Criteria for Board Selection even while nominations are being discussed within the Board and amongst staff members
• Allow sufficient time for the nomination process to ensure that there is a wide enough pool of nominees from which to make the selection from.
• Nominate women who are not just excellent leaders, visionaries and strategic thinkers in their organisations, but also are known for the superior interpersonal and self-management skills. This is an important combination to the overall criteria as respect for others is just as important as expertise and experience.
• Members who are or have been EDs bring special insights and understanding to their role.

PROCESS 1: Board meeting processes

Introduction

The ARROW BOD meetings are the key governance space for the organisation. The BOD meets at least twice a year and these meetings last between two to three days. While ARROW maintains the structure of a traditional hierarchical organisation, each level of this structure is infused with practices that are non-conventional and express congruence with the core values of the organisation. These set of processes are being shared to provide a glimpse of the way in which the ARROW Board functions.

Key components of Board meeting processes

Following are some of the key elements that the ARROW Board has cultivated to be more participatory, transparent and accountable:

• The Board of ARROW does not have a fixed Chair, and the responsibility of chairing each Board meeting is shared between the members.
• Board meetings begin with a personal sharing by each Board member, the ED and staff representative present. Each person takes about 15–20 minutes to share with others their personal, organisational or movement based highlights.
• There is always a staff representative, who is chosen by other staff members, present during board meetings. Although the staff representative is present as an observer and has no decision-making power, she is present through all the discussions of the Board and can be asked to provide a view.
• The staff representative presents at the Board meeting any issue that the staff members would like to put forward during a dedicated agenda item at the Board meeting. These concerns are discussed in a special staff meeting called for this purpose prior to the Board meetings.
• The Board conducts all its meetings in a completely transparent way. There are very few, in-camera discussions and all matters (except personnel appraisal or disciplinary matters and individual staff salaries) are discussed openly and documented meticulously.
• Considerable time and effort is given to ensure the quality of Board documents. Board members are called upon to present position papers and draft policy documents to support the Board's decisionmaking processes.
• All Board decisions are meticulously documented and the ED is required to share these decisions with staff members during the monthly staff meeting, as well as circulate Board minutes to all. The Board's view is that the more open they are about the discussions they have and the rationale by which decisions were reached, the greater the level of appreciation and transparency of the decisions, and less feelings amongst staff members of not having their views taken into account.
• The Board has instituted a Board Appraisal process where Board members undergo an appraisal process annually. In this appraisal process, the Board members assess themselves through the use of a self-reflective Board Competency Assessment Tool (See Tool 5). This is followed by the second stage of appraisal which involves staff members giving their assessment of the Board's performance using the same Board Appraisal Tool. The information gathered with the appraisal tool is used as a way of generating a discussion within the Board about its performance as a Board and as individual members.

Challenges experienced in following the processes

• Given the informality of the process of rotating the chairing of the meeting, time management can become an issue, and some of our efficiency is compromised.
• Sometimes when the Board agenda becomes packed with issues that need our urgent attention, we are unable to allocate time for the more reflective and evaluative discussions that the Board needs on a regular basis. We are also often unable to review organisational policies and procedures with the regularity that is ideal.

Tips: Lessons from following the processes

• Time spent in personal sharing can enhance the spirit of solidarity amongst Board members.
• Creating room for personal interactions outside the Board meeting space ensures greater cohesiveness and cooperation—both critical components of good decision-making.
• Clear documentation of Board decisions around policies, practices and principles is critical to effective governance of the organisation. It is important to develop a practical template for the minutes of the meeting that can communicate critical decisions and views of the Board accurately and in an accessible way.
• Careful and prioritised agenda setting is essential.

TOOL 5: Board Competency Assessment Tool

Introduction

The Board Competency Assessment Tool is a competency assessment tool that was developed in line with the development of competency models for various staff categories of responsibility. This tool has been used by the ARROW's BOD as a process for reflecting and reviewing the role and performance of the Board in its governance of ARROW and deciding on what needed to be improved.

Why was the tool developed?

In 2006, the BOD reviewed an organisational capacity assessment tool, named the SRHR Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool, which included assessment criteria of the Board. In a discussion initiated during a regular BOD meeting, the Board agreed that it would be useful to use such a tool to strengthen the Board. As all positions in ARROW had an annual appraisal and evaluation processes, the Board saw it as fair and important for quality outputs that the Board appraised itself.

How was the tool developed?

This Board Competency Assessment Tool was culled out of the SRHR Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool that ARROW had developed in one of its projects. The competency indicators used in the tool was selected through a discussion between a Board member and the ARROW staff in charge of the development of ARROW's organisational assessment tool. This tool was then finalised and used by the BOD.

Key components of the tool

The ARROW Board Competency Assessment Tool consists of seven competency areas, and four levels indicating degrees of competency in each of areas. The seven competency areas that are used in this tool are:

• Shared beliefs and values: Referring to the degree to which the Board shared the common set of beliefs and values to which the organisation itself adheres.
• Board composition and commitment: Referring to the degree of diversity of fields of practice and expertise amongst Board members, and the degree of their demonstrated commitment to the organisation's success, mission and vision.
• Governing Board commitment and effectiveness on SRHR research, monitoring and advocacy: Referring to the percentage of members with SRHR and research, monitoring and advocacy experience, and the degree to which the Board takes up policy decisions on SRHR monitoring, research and advocacy.
• Board governance: Referring to the degree to which Board members understand their legal, advisory and management roles, and their fiduciary duties. This competency also refers to the effectiveness of the Board in its own nomination processes, and the degree to which it holds the ED accountable.
• Board involvement and support: Referring to the degree to which the Board provides direction, support, leadership and strategic resources to the ED of the organisation. It also refers to the communications of the Board and the degree to which it is respectful, appreciative and reflective of shared commitment.
• Board and ED appreciation of power issues: Referring to the degree to which the Board recognises power issues, and the degree to which policies and procedures are established to mediate power and address these issues.

A copy of the Board Competency Assessment Tool is listed as Annexe 4.

How to use the tool

In ARROW, this tool has been used by the Board to take time and reflect on the role and performance of the Board in order to address problems and enabling Board members to better fulfil their responsibilities. Although this tool has not been used annually as it was envisioned, in the times that the Board has used it, following is the process that has been followed:

• Time is allocated within the Board agenda for a review of Board competencies.
• Each Board member assesses their own performance in quiet reflection and rates themselves on their individual sheets.
• The Board members then sit together and discuss their ratings and their reasons for choosing them. This opens up space for an honest conversation of how each Board member feels they have performed in the year/s past.
• Staff also meet and rate the Board using the same assessment tool. The staff representative presents to the Board their ratings, and this is used as an opportunity for the staff to provide honest feedback to the Board.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• Placing the Board appraisal as an item on the agenda regularly as a very important governance item.
• Listening to critical feedback openly from peers and colleagues and not being defensive.
• Following up on recommendations. Board matters are sometimes not given as much priority as programme matters and the quality of Board governance can then be at risk.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Enough time needs to be given for a reflective and open process from which maximum learning and insights can be gained.
• Immediate recommendations made to strengthen the Board can be noted. The next Board meeting needs to revisit these to come up with a definite plan.

TOPIC 3: Executive Director, Management Team and staff accountability

Introduction

Accountability specifies to whom the position/person or the committee needs to report to in terms of their performance according to their TOR and work plan. Accountability processes are directly related to the exercise of responsibilities and authority structures. Processes of accountability include reporting, performance appraisal and evaluation according to indicators. For smooth organisational functioning, clear TORs of committees and Job Descriptions specifying responsibility and authority together with specific work plans are essential.

We believe that this clarity of accountability at each level and accountability processes to ensure high quality of work and help build an effective and strong organisation.

Under this topic, we share key tools that are used in ARROW to ensure accountability at the level of the ED, MT and among staff.

TOOL 6: Executive Director Job Description

Introduction

The ED Job Description is the document that outlines the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the ED in her position.

Why was the tool developed?

This tool was developed in the early stages of the organisation's set up in order to clearly delineate ARROW's hierarchy of accountabilities and responsibilities within the organisation.

The Board believed that the clearer the role of the ED was within the structure of the organisation, the more effectively she would be in carrying out her duties and responsibilities, thus ensuring that work at all levels was implemented towards the achievement of the organisation's strategic goals.

How was the tool developed?

Di Surgey wrote the current job description for the ED after delineating the role, its responsibilities and accountabilities as part of a capacity assessment in 1998.

Key components of the ED Job Description

The ED Job Description, as with all staff job descriptions begins with a description of ARROW, the organisation's context, strategies, mission, and core principles, before defining the role of the ED. Following is the description of the role of the ED in this tool:

The Executive Director's role is to provide leadership to the organisation, programme and Management Team in terms of vision, strategic planning and overseeing processes to ensure a high quality programme and a sustainable and effective organisation.¹

The tool then lists the key responsibilities of the ED in four key areas: namely, i) organisational development, ii) programme planning and development; iii) human resources; and iv) finance and legal.

After listing all the responsibilities of the position the lines of accountability of the ED is clearly stated: “The Executive Director is responsible to the BOD.”

This tool is thus laid out in a way that provides the incumbent in the position of ED a clear outline of her roles and responsibilities.

The copy of the complete ED Job Description is listed as Annexe 5.

How to use this tool

The tool is used in the following ways:

• As a reference for the ED in carrying out her functions;
• As a reference to the BOD on the areas of responsibility that the ED is held accountable for;
• Together with the ED Competency Model document, the Job description is used in the annual appraisal of the ED's performance on the job; and
• As a reference for other staff members of ARROW of the roles and responsibilities of the ED in relation to other positions.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• There are some grey areas in ED authority as a j ob description is not able to describe all the specific operational aspects of decision-making. There is thus need for clarification at times with the Board.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• The job description needs to be very clear. Sufficient time is needed to develop an excellent job description.
• Review of the job description by several Board members is useful.
• Refer to the job description as often as needed when clarifying roles and responsibilities so that familiarity is established and use becomes more frequent.
• The job description needs to be given to new Board members as part of their orientation package.

PROCESS 2: The accountability of the Executive Director to the Board

Introduction

The accountability of the ED to the BOD refers to the ED's responsibility to report back to the BOD on all her areas of responsibility as clearly outlined in her job description. The ED's job description is critical to this relationship as it clearly delineates what the ED is being entrusted with responsibility for. This process describes all the ways in which the ED remains accountable to the BOD. This is being shared as a resource because it is a critical component of the way the hierarchy of authority and responsibility for work is distributed and accounted for at every level of the structure.

Following are the specific ways in which the relationship of accountability between the Board and ED is established and maintained:

• The ED presents the Annual Work Plan and Budget to the Board for approval during the last Board meeting of the year. This is developed based upon agreements of goals and outcomes as outlined in the five-yearly Strategic Plan.
• Advice and support is sought by the ED for specific segments of the Work Plan and Budget, and the Board discusses and provides their recommendations and inputs on these sections before approving the plan and budget.
• The ED provides regular progress reports to the Board both during the official board meeting, as well as via email in between Board meetings, identifying any strategic issues either needing the Board to be aware of or specific Board input. In particular, she alerts the Board on risk to all aspects of organisational, programme and financial health of the organisation, as part and parcel of her responsibility as an ED and as a critical component of risk management. When needed, the ED is encouraged to freely consult any member of the Board for advice on how to handle different organisation and programmatic issues as they emerge.
• The ED goes through an annual appraisal process which is conducted by two members of the BOD. The BOD uses the ED Competency model in tandem with the Performance Appraisal Form in an in-depth evaluation process. (See TOOL 7: ED Competency Model and TOOL 8: Performance Appraisal Form below).
• The ED is responsible for conducting an annual programme evaluation and planning process. The Board participates in this exercise and provides recommendations and inputs into the process. The Board also reviews, comments and then finally approves the annual report of ARROW including the EDs introduction to this for accuracy and evaluative insight.
• The Board works closely with the ED and participates in the design, development and evaluation of the Strategic Planning process.
• Two documents that are central to the accountability relationship between the ED and the Board are the Board's TOR and the ED's job description. They provide the core agreements and understanding of roles and responsibilities, and guides discussions when there are points lacking clarity or some grey areas not specifically referred to in the documents.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• When there are unplanned activities and opportunities that are outside of the approved Strategic Plan emerge, the ED's authority to make decisions on these are unclear. There have been a couple of instances where the BOD and ED needed to further discuss and clarify decisions made by the ED on unplanned activities.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Investing time and effort to develop documents that clearly outline roles, responsibilities and relationships goes a long way towards ensuring that every level of the organisation's structure has greater clarity on responsibilities and lines of authority and accountability.
• Recruiting Board members who themselves have experience in both managing and governing women's organisations enriches the discussions of the accountability of the ED to the Board.
• Be willing to be honest in raising concerns for the benefit of the governance of the organisation and exercise full governance authority rather than act as a rubber stamp.

TOOL 7: ED competency model

Introduction

The ED Competency Model is an organisational document prepared by consultants that provides a common language for understanding the ED's job competencies, as well as providing the framework for developing a competency-based approach to human resource development for all staff positions in the organisation. The ED Competency Model was the first to be developed.

Why was the tool developed?

This tool was developed in 2004 when the Board and staff members felt that the organisation was ready for a clearer definition and understanding of job competencies required for each member of the staff body. The competency-based approach to human resource management that this model gave rise to is seen as in keeping with the organisation's core values of fairness, commitment to quality and transparency of process.

How was it developed?

The ED's Competency Model was developed through an extensive human resource research exercise spanning a month and involving both staff, Board members and key informants. The initial discussions were carried out in a workshop held by the organisational consultants for both Board and staff members during one of ARROW's Board-Staff year-end evaluation and planning retreats. This provided the core understanding of what the organisation was seeking to establish through this process.

How to use this tool

The Competency Model has been used by ARROW in the following ways:

• As a recruitment tool: ARROW has successfully been able to recruit two EDs using the Competency Model as a recruitment tool. The very clear benchmarks for competencies were converted into areas for assessment of candidates, and through a rating and scoring method that was developed, Board members were able to stay focused on the requisite competencies of the candidate and fairly assessed all candidates based on standard indicators.
• As an appraisal tool: The ED Competency Model serves as the key tool during the annual performance reviews of the ED. The articulated definitions of competencies and descriptions of behaviour traits, though lengthy in nature, provide a common frame during the evaluation process, and the model is used in tandem with Tool 7: ED Performance Appraisal Form
• As a supervision tool: The ED Competency Model can be used to supervise the ED to strengthen certain competencies.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• The model is very comprehensive, but frames some of the key behaviours under a particular area of competency in language that may not be entirely in keeping with the ethos of the organisation. It is vital therefore, to use the model as a guide and interpret the principles of the model in line with the needs of the organisation.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• This is a long tool with many competencies. In order to use it effectively, one needs to take time and become familiar with the tool.
• For ED recruitment, it is very useful to have a guide on which competencies are the most important in the organisation's view. In other words to give a weightage to the different competencies. Since candidates will not have an excellent level of all competencies required when they first join an organisation, it is important to decide which ones are critical to the organisation at the time.
• Regularly refer to the Competency Model when carrying out the appraisal of the ED.

TOOL 8: ED performance appraisal

Introduction

The ED's Performance Appraisal Form is the tool that is used by the BOD to conduct the annual assessments of the Executive Director. This form is tailored specifically for the ED's areas of core responsibility and core competencies. This tool is being presented as an example of a performance appraisal form for leaders and managers. There are two other Appraisal Forms developed for each of the levels of staff—for Managers and for Programme Officers.

Why was the tool developed?

Appraisal of the EDs performance annually by the Board is a critical component of Board governance. The process holds the ED accountable to the Board, rewards the ED for excellent performance and results in a plan to strengthen ED competencies.

How was the tool developed?

This is the second ED performance appraisal tool which was developed in 2007 after the ED competency model was developed. The appraisal criteria were developed in a participatory way with both Board and ED and managers giving input of the criteria to be included and the weightage of these. The tool was then finalised by the same consultancy that produced the ED Competency Model, and has been used as a model to develop all the other staff appraisal forms in the organisation.

ED's Performance Appraisal Form—How to use it

The ED Performance Appraisal Form, like other staff appraisal forms in ARROW, are crafted specifically to evaluate the staff member based on key performance indicators and job competencies. The appraisal form is divided into three key components:

• Key Performance Indicators/Major Accomplishments
• Core Competencies
• Attitudes and Values

A rating system allocates 60 percent to Accomplishment and 20 percent each to Core Competencies and Attitudes and Values. The Appraisal of the ED is conducted by two Board members and usually is conducted over half a day.

Following are the steps by which the ED Performance Appraisal Form is used:

• The Board members and ED confer and agree on the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and Major Accomplishments that will be included in that year's appraisal
• Using the ED Competency Model, each Board member conducting the appraisal fills in her own assessment in separate forms.
• The ED uses the same form to do a self-assessment prior to meeting up with the Board members, based on the ED Competency Model.
• When the Board Members and ED come together, they go over each area of the KPI and Major Accomplishments and discuss the ratings that each gave, and the reasons for doing so. This opens up the space to have a deeper dialogue about the different areas, as well as review some of the significant examples of accomplishments over the past year.
• The Board members and the ED use this opportunity to raise concerns and challenges faced over the year. The time of the evaluation is also used to celebrate key successes and accomplishments of the ED individually, and of the organisation as a whole.
• Through a process of negotiation with the ED over each appraisal item in the form, the Board Members come to a common agreement on their common rating, and the comments that they wish to have formally noted in the Appraisal Form.
• The Board members and ED also used this as an opportunity to chart out the ED's Development Plan and agree on the kind of support and/or professional development opportunities the ED will seek over the coming year.
• A completed Appraisal Form is submitted by one of the Board Members to the organisation's administrative unit, for filing and action.
• One of the Board members will make a verbal report of the ED Performance Appraisal process and decisions arrived at during the next Board meeting.

A copy of the complete Executive Director Appraisal Form is listed as Annexe 6.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• Following the process and timelines conscientiously can be difficult due to competing demands. This is an internal organisational process and sometimes external events take precedence.
• Ensuring that the performance appraisal is based on solid evidence can be a challenge for the Board which does not work with the ED on a day-to-day basis. Preparation and reflection of the Board before hand is thus essential. The ED also needs to present a summary of her achievements from her perspective to the Board representatives before the appraisal.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Do appraisals on time as performance is time bound. This both shows the commitment to the process and ensures performance is time bound.
• The whole process needs to thoroughly documented, signing and filing the appraisal form at the end. This process is just as important as any programme matter.
• Give adequate time so that the process is comprehensive and relaxed.
• Agree upon the KPIs and accomplishments that will be assessed prior to the start of the appraisal session.
• Provide concrete examples of situations or events when making an assessment of the ED's competence.

PROCESS 3: Management Team's decision-making process

Introduction

The Management Team (MT) consists of three managers and the ED, who leads the MT. The Managers are tasked to support the ED in the overall management and development of the organisation.

Why did ARROW develop a Management Team?

The Management Team was developed to provide the ED with support to carry out the management and development of the organisation. ARROW's staff group was expanding and creating an additional layer to the structure of the organisation, meant adequate support and supervision to team members. This has also enabled the ED to take input from the Managers for more informed, consultative decision-making processes.

Key responsibilities of the Management Team

The relationships within the MT are established in the job descriptions of the ED as well as each of the Managers. The role of the MT is to support the ED in carrying out the management and development of the organisation.

Together, the MT carries out the following responsibilities:

• Oversees ARROW's overall implementation of the strategic plan, in line with the overall vision and mission of the organisation and to ensure that plans for the year are accomplished to the best of the organisation's ability, which includes monitoring programmes, to troubleshoot where necessary, and to ensure that the staff and the organisation's needs are looked after;
• Reviews the organisation's overall financial management and resource mobilisation strategy;
• Led by the ED, works on personnel recruitment and development of induction (orientation), training and personnel appraisal systems and practices for programme staff, and other senior staff when necessary;
• Led by the ED, engages in strategic planning, particularly programme planning, monitoring and evaluation; and
• Works with the ED and other appropriate staff members on the development of project funding proposals, the annual report, and project reports to donors.

Key components of the Management Team's decisionmaking process

• The main forum for consultation and decisionmaking of the MT is its monthly meetings. Initially, both the chairing and minute taking at these meetings were rotated. However, for efficiency, the chairing is now done by the ED and the minutes are taken by the Executive Assistant.
• The agenda of the MT meeting is prepared in draft by the ED and circulated ahead of time. These agenda items are prioritised in order to ensure that all critical decisions will be made at the meeting.
• Preparation for MT meetings ensures that there is sufficient management information for decisions to be made effectively. All necessary documents and financial reports are prepared as far as possible, ahead of the meeting and circulated so that the ED and Managers have time to prepare for the meeting.
• During the MT meetings, the first agenda item is a review of all decisions and actions taken from the last meeting. This leads to the issue being closed, or if necessary further discussed in order to address what remains outstanding.
• This is followed by a discussion of each agenda item with the background of the issue under discussion highlighted. After the agenda item is presented, there is a round of inputs from everyone giving their views on the issue being. The matter is discussed until the MT comes to a final agreement. Decisions are made as far as possible on the basis of consensus. Where there is a disagreement on an issue, or they are unable to reach a decision, the MT through the ED will seek out additional inputs and advice from the Board.
• The ED has the authority to make the final decisions on issues, keeping in mind, the guidelines of the organisation, the strategic plan and the interests of the staff, Board and the organisation as a whole.
• The designated staff representative sits through the MT meetings to be aware of the discussions and decisions of the MT. The staff representative may also be asked for opinion by the MT on certain matters affecting staff, or she may also bring up staff matters for MT to discuss. The MT also ensures that meticulous minutes are taken and that the updates of MT decisions are shared during the staff meetings.
• Besides the formal MT monthly meetings, quick consultations happen throughout the month on decisions that need a quick turnaround. These happen either face-to-face, via email, telephone or Skype conversations.

Challenges faced in using the process

• During extremely busy periods, when MT members are organising or attending meetings and therefore travelling extensively, finding time for all members to meet can be challenging. The first opportunity is taken to hold the meeting, and consultations are done via email or phone calls if a decision needs to be made urgently.

Tips: Lessons from using the process

• The MT is a sufficiently small decision-making unit to develop processes of decision-making that are more consensual. Being deliberate and conscious about the meeting processes used to make decisions strengthens the leadership capacity of all involved.
• Being prepared for meetings goes a long way in being able to make informed decisions for the good of the organisation.

TOOL 9: Staff meeting process

ARROW staff meetings always hold a special place for staff for many reasons: It is a time of coming together for most of the staff (unless they are on an emergency mission, or taking emergency leave), to discuss what we all have been doing in the past month and what we plan to do in the future, and essentially keep ourselves abreast of organisational and programmatic matters. This time is also considered special because staff has an opportunity to put forward their views and perspectives going beyond their work area or work objective, when issues are discussed. Staff meetings have also served as the initial launch pads for issues that concern staff including staff benefits such as health allowance, revision of salary scales and so forth.

— Sai Jyothirmai Racherla, former ARROW Programme Officer

Introduction

Staff meetings are regular monthly meeting where staff members share information, discuss programmatic and other issues, and put forward concerns. These meeting are highly participatory and central to the organisation's programme planning, implementation and monitoring structure.

Why was the tool developed?

ARROW has held staff meetings even when there were just two Directors and two staff members as the total staff body. We did so because we believe that the organisation is strengthened when all staff members have full knowledge and are able to critically engage and give inputs into all aspects of the organisation. Over time, the meetings have become more formal in their processes. However, we believe that what may have been lost in informality has been gained by clearer and more accountable decision-making and transparency of information flows. We have found that well-planned and well-documented meetings are critical to effective planning, monitoring and evaluations.

Key components of the staff meeting process

Following are the key procedures involved the set up and carrying out of ARROW staff meetings:

• Meetings are scheduled earlier so that people can prepare and plan their time.
• A draft agenda is prepared by the ED with input from the MT, and circulated along with the minutes of the previous staff meeting to all staff members for their comments and inputs.
• The regular format of the meeting is as follows:
  1. The agenda for the meeting is confirmed;
  2. Conflict of interest is registered by staff members;
  3. The minutes of the previous staff meeting are confirmed;
  4. Matters arising are discussed;
  5. MT reports updates and decisions from their previous meeting;
  6. BOD and PAC updates if any are shared,;
  7. Reports from each of the staff teams working on programmes and projects
  8. Administration and Finance updates
  9. Reports of representations at meetings outside the office in the previous month
  10. Annual work plan's monthly and quarterly outputs are monitored together and planning of activities for the next few months are discussed,
  11. Any other matters arising.
• If there are documents to discuss these are sent out earlier for better preparation.
• The ED chairs the meeting and the minute taker is rotated in an alphabetical order.
• Draft minutes are aimed to be circulated at the latest three days after the meeting for efficiency. If capacity building in minute taking is an objective, the staff will obtain their supervisor's input.
• Once all staff have commented (within three days), the minutes are finalised quickly and sent out again to all staff.
• The Executive Assistant to the ED is assigned with the task of reminding staff of meetings and minute schedules, preparing the routine agenda, sending out papers and filing documents in the staff meetings file.
• Staff meetings have been evaluated by the MT and staff from time to time. This practice, however, has not yet been institutionalised into the half year and annual evaluations.

Challenges experienced in using the process

• Given the fairly intensive travel schedule of staff members for different project related meetings and events, scheduling monthly staff meeting have sometimes been a problem. When we have postponed a staff meeting, our next meeting is extremely lengthy as we have to accommodate pending issues from previous months.
• Staff rarely speak up on issues and discussions. When the issue is new or fairly complex, some staff might not feel confident enough to speak up.

Tips: Lessons from using the process

• Introduce a quarterly programme coordination meeting, which are longer than staff meetings and allow for a fuller discussion of programme implementation and coordination within the office.
• Orient new staff on staff meeting processes so that they are able to contribute to discussion meaningfully.
• Encourage staff to comment on issues that are beyond their areas of work by creating moments in the meeting process, where inputs from all staff are encouraged.
• Deal with grievances outside the staff meeting space. We find that this can distract the productivity of the meeting. Use existing procedures in a separate discussion with concerned staff member/s and their programme manager.
• Where possible, rotate the role of the meeting chair amongst staff so that all have an opportunity to develop their capacity in chairing meetings and leading discussions.

TOPIC 4: Programme Advisory Committee

Introduction

The Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) is an advisory body of individuals that are experts and activists in the field of SRHR who provide strategic direction to ARROW's programme. The PAC was formed in early 1994 barely a year after ARROW was founded, and began to meet annually from that year. The PAC is a body separate from the BOD that provides critical advice, evaluation and direction for ARROW's programme relevance, quality and effectiveness. The PAC played a critical role with inputs into of ARROW's programme planning in the early years and continues to play an important role in sharpening and strengthening the strategic nature of ARROW's programming.

Through the PAC, ARROW has been able to ensure the kind of participation of feminist and SRHR activists in ARROW that the founders envisioned. The PAC is also an important way in which power is distributed, as the Board does not influence the PAC, nor does it play a role in the work of the PAC. The PAC provides input into the kind of strategies that would be most suitable given the present socio-political conditions, introduces and discusses emerging issues, and ensures that ARROW's work is on track with regards the commitments set in the Strategic Plan. The PAC creates a ‘check and balance’ mechanism to ensure that the programmatic decisions of the organisation are not made in a vacuum, but with grounding in realities at both national and regional levels.

Under this topic, we share several key resources that help ensure we are able to benefit from having our PAC:

• TOOL 10: Programme Advisory Committee Terms of Reference;
• TOOL 11: Criteria for PAC Selection; and,
• PROCESS 4: Programme Advisory Committee Consultation Process.

TOOL 10: PAC Terms of Reference

Introduction

This tool describes the roles and responsibilities required of a PAC member.

Why was the tool developed?

The tool was developed to provide clarity of function to all those joining the PAC as new members, and to the staff members to better understand how they could tap into the PAC members to support ARROW's programme implementation.

How was the tool developed?

This tool was developed by the Founder-Directors who were also the BOD at the time. Developed in 1993 when the organisation was just being founded, it was based on thinking of the needs of the organisation and the new programme that had been outlined in the first strategic plan of ARROW.

Programme Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the PAC members contained in ARROW's MAPP was revised in 2002. Following are the key roles and responsibilities of the PAC members as defined in the TOR:

• Review and assess the general direction of ARROW's programme and work plan during an annual meeting to ensure that it is effectively addressing the mission, objectives and roles of the organisation as well as meeting the programme objectives;
• Contribute feedback, reviews, evaluation and other inputs on information, publications, research, advocacy and capacity building related to ARROW's core areas of work in and between meetings; and
• Assist in identifying people and organisations who can become involved in advancing, implementing and envisioning ARROW's programme objectives.

A member of ARROW's Programme Advisory Committee will serve for a fixed term of three years and may be nominated again for not more than one more term.

All members of the PAC shall comply with ARROW's Code of Ethics and all other policies. In the event that a member is found to be in breach of organisational policies, it may result in the Board recommending the exclusion of the said member from the Programme Advisory Committee.

How to use the tool

This tool can be used, and has been used in the following ways:

• As part of an orientation programme for new PAC members;
• As a reference for clarifying roles and responsibilities by PAC members and by staff members; and,
• As part of an assessment exercise.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• The inputs of the PAC are an essential component of ARROW's programme implementation. As such most PAC meetings have a very full agenda, and a lot of documents shared for PAC members to review. It has been a challenge for some PAC members to get through the volume of documents presented at the meeting.
• There is also the fact that documents are prepared in English and this is not the native language of several PAC members, making it harder to comprehend the full meaning of the documents.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• PAC members need to be fully oriented on their role to be able to function effectively.
• Make provisions to support the language needs of PAC members with limited English skills. Providing a brief summary at the start of every document that the PAC member is required to read could be helpful.

TOOL 11: PAC selection criteria

The Board maintained a commitment to the practice of inviting a potential PAC member as an observer at an annual meeting, giving both parties the opportunity to test ‘the fit’ with the organisation. Members were chosen carefully and only after evidencing outstanding contributions to the women's health cause. By the time an individual became a formal member of the PAC, there was a lot of lateral respect in the room. Thus, strategic and careful recruitment, an inclusive culture and fostering the recognition of mutuality of interest, experience and delight were, in my view, the keystones to ARROW's approach to participation.

—Di Surgey, former PAC and BOD member

Introduction

This tool consists of both the criteria for the selection of Programme Advisory Committee members as well as the process by which this selection takes place.

Why was the tool developed?

The PAC provides critical advice and direction for ARROW's programme relevance, quality and effectiveness. The criteria and the process of selection were both developed in order to be able to seek out the best possible PAC members, to strengthen the implementation of ARROW's Work Programme and Budget.

How was the tool developed?

This tool was developed together with the PAC TOR. Looking at the TOR and what was listed as the needs of the organisation, criteria were developed to seek out people best able to carry out the responsibilities listed in the TOR. The draft was prepared and the discussed with the staff members, before being finalised by the BOD.

Selection criteria for Programme Advisory Committee members

ARROW's PAC members are chosen based upon a correlation between their affiliation to the democratic struggles in the region, especially with regards the women's and SRHR movements, and the pragmatic needs of ARROW in terms of expert advice.

PAC members will be appointed by the Board after consultation with ARROW staff on programme needs. Both staff and Board members will recommend candidates based on the following criteria:

• Proven expertise in at least two of ARROW's programme strategies;
• Commitment to ARROW's mission and long-term programme objectives;
• Active in the women's movement nationally, and if possible, also regionally and internationally;
• A person who is widely respected among ARROW stakeholders and the women's movement for their personal qualities and skills; and,
• Working in or coming from one of ARROW's current priority countries.

These women (and men) are invited to PAC in their own right, and not as representatives of their organisation, not do they represent any specific interest groups nor constituencies. However, effort is made to ensure that there is a balance of geographical location, focusing on the countries where ARROW's work is concentrated.

The PAC presently consists of 8 members. Two of these places are reserved for young people (defined as being under the age of 30, though the Board has requested that at least one person be below the age of 25 years). Membership can be expanded up to 10 people, as ARROW considers 8–10 people a good number of PAC members for input, synergy and group bonding.

How to use the tool

Following are the procedures that guide the process of selecting PAC members:

• Potential members are identified by staff and discussed based on the criteria, the organisation's current work and strategic needs of the organisation.
• Up to two guests are budgeted to be invited to PAC meetings as a way to both get to know potential new PAC members and also to provide expert input into the meeting on specific items or overall.
• Information from people followed up (i.e., their CV etc.) is compiled into a criteria format by staff and presented to the Board for consideration.
• The Board shortlists candidates, based on the criteria, and decides on new members preferably during in a meeting which allows for more discussion. An offer of appointment is made by the ED on behalf of the Board.
• When the 3-year term is coming to an end (i.e. six months before), the Board considers staff views and their own views on the member's performance and may offer another 3-year term if in the interests of the organisation.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• This tool and the process of using it have been most effective in finding the right people as members of PAC. Given that many of the people with the right skills sets are also leaders of their own organisation, in some instances, some PAC members have not been able to keep up with requests for inputs that come in between the meetings.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Inviting a potential PAC member to a meeting to give some technical input has been a good way to get a sense of the match between the person and the organisation and the PAC as a group.
• Advisors need to be given a clear sense of what their responsibilities will entail in terms of a time commitment, so that they can make an informed decision about joining the organisation as an advisor.

PROCESS 4: PAC Consultation Process

I was really struck by the PAC and how it functioned. There was such a high level of competence amongst the staff, and they provided energy, creativity and a kind of empowerment. In ARROW, they're very literate, knowledgeable and empowered, and it felt good to interact with young people. It gives you hope. I was on the PAC for two terms, and I must say that I was really amazed by its structure. I'd open the folder and see thick stacks of documents! It was very business-y, and sometimes meetings went were often very long. The process that they employed was quite flexible and loose. They would ask different members of the PAC to chair the meeting, and I think this was a great idea. What you lost in efficiency, you gained in participation and ownership. I also really appreciated the close friendships we had with other PAC members. It was a very different kind of venue and very personally enriching for me.

—Junice Demeterio-Melgar, Executive Director, Likhaan, former PAC and Board member

Introduction

The Programme Advisory Committee is consulted once a year in an annual meeting, and throughout the year through email and Skype. The process of consultation is one that is carefully thought through to maximise the interactions of the PAC members with both staff members and other PAC members. As such, a high degree of participation and engagement in encouraged.

Key components of the PAC consultation process

Below are the consultation processes that ARROW has in place to ensure that the Programme Advisory Committee is able to contribute to ARROW's programmatic growth:

• The main ARROW forum for consultation to the PAC is the annual meeting, held prior to the Board meeting in April or May. At this meeting, critical agenda items include the following:
  • Sharing by PAC members of the SRHR status and context in their country, which provides the programme team with first-hand insights from activists working in that context. This also would affirm the team's reading of issues in the region, and may also point to emerging trends.
  • A review of the ARROW programme team's work for the past year and plans for the remainder of the year. PAC members help assess annual progress towards the achievement of the objectives of the strategic plan, identify the gaps, and propose ways in which the team can further improve its work.
  • Seeking input from the PAC on other critical programmatic matters. The programme team also poses a few ‘burning questions,’ matters that they most need strategic advice on, usually when they are thinking of starting or expanding a programme. The meeting is also a venue for the programme team to present and seek input from PAC on strategy papers and plans, and position papers on certain issues. Input on the AFC bulletin themes are also sought from PAC.
  • All programme staff members facilitate sessions and make presentations at the meeting. Board members also participate as observers in the PAC meeting, to enable them to be appraised of what is happening programmatically, as well as to get to know the PAC and staff team better. Ideally, at least two Board members observe, and they report to the Board meeting.
• Aside from this, advice is sought from PAC throughout the year via email. These may include seeking input related to AFC concept notes, strategy and position papers, as well as funding proposals.
• It should be noted that in the end, input from PAC is advisory, and it is left to the Programme Team to decide what can be taken forward, in consideration of various other factors, such as funding and human resource availability, and whether the advice fits into the strategic plan.
• In cases where the PAC advises that papers or policies to be developed in relation to programme, the Board's input and approval is also needed.
• The staff maintains a regular section during the monthly management and staff meetings, for discussions on both the Board and PAC. During this time slot, updates relevant to these two bodies are given, including the decisions made at the annual PAC meeting, as well as on PAC membership issues.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• Given that ARROW invites experts in the regions who are extremely busy and wear multiple hats, and that membership to the PAC is voluntary, getting timely and substantive inputs from members can sometimes be a challenge.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• The input of any advisory team will be as good as the meeting that is planned for it. Therefore it is critical that time is given to plan an excellent agenda, and sufficient time for dialogue and reflection on all of the key items. Likewise, documents that need to be reviewed should be sent ahead of time so that advisors have time to prepare adequately for the meeting.
• Encourage advisory members to take a lead on the discussion of different items on the agenda. This will involve them more effectively, and create a greater sense of ownership for the process and the programme.
• Rotate the responsibility for planning advisor meetings to different staff teams. This increases the sense of ownership by the staff for the process. It is also an effective capacity development opportunity for staff members, and particularly for those who are new to the organisation.

TOPIC 5: Valuing staff

Introduction

In 2013 ARROW has 17 women employees. The organisation relies on these women to drive the outputs of ARROW through their work and also to keep the heart in the organisation through their commitment to advocacy in line with the organisation's mission. Without our paid employees, ARROW would not exist.

As a regional organisation it is extremely unlikely that the Board could sustain an organisation on unpaid labour or their own voluntary contributions. We value staff because they are the engine of the organisation. We rely on them to make us strong.

Maintaining staff and enjoying low turnover rates is critical to the organisation. Continuity brings stability but it also brings to the organisation the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of skills development. Managing our industrial relations and taking care to offer decent work conditions are ways that we can show that we value staff and respect their importance in ARROW's work. For these reasons, ARROW has strived to offer conditions that are attractive to current and to potential employees.

Further, ARROW's values of participation, fairness and transparency also suggest that work conditions, and the way they are negotiated, display value and respect for staff members. As an employer ARROW must, of course, meet minimum standards as reflected in local labour laws in its host country. It is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that these are met in policy, and of the ED to ensure that they are met in practice.

In keeping with its rights-based approach, ARROW treats all work conditions and benefits as a right, not a privilege. If they exist in our Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures document, they exist as a right for staff. ARROW sees fundamental importance in staff understanding that they do not need to ask for their rights to be met.

Under this topic, we share one process and two tools that are key to our overall commitment to valuing staff in tangible ways, namely:

• PROCESS 5: Review of ARROW's Salary Scale,
• TOOL 12: Staff Work Conditions and Entitlements, and
• TOOL 13: ARROW's Well-being Policy.

PROCESS 5: Review of ARROW's salary scale

Introduction

The Review of ARROW's salary scale refers to a process by which the organisation's Board-approved official salary scale goes through a process of regular assessment to ensure that salaries for each staff position remains competitive. The Board has stated that a salary review does not necessarily mean that salaries will increase and they may even be reduced.

Why was the process developed?

ARROW developed this process of salary scale review in keeping with our principle of wanting to provide, good, if not very good, salaries to be able to attract the best possible staff and to remunerate them fairly and well for their work. By staying competitive in terms of salaries offered, and combining this with an attractive benefit package and opportunities for staff to continuously learn and grow, ARROW's leadership was confident that ARROW could maintain a body of highly qualified, well-appreciated and satisfied staff.

In 2006, the Board recommended the practice that staff salary scale be reviewed before the finalisation of the next cycle of the Strategic Plan, so that a new salary structure, if approved by the Board, could be included in the budget of the new strategic plan for fund raising. Prior to that, salaries were reviewed, but not following the organisational cycle in the way that it does now.

Key components of the salary scale review process

• The regular review of the salary scale is an approved automatic process to occur prior to the finalisation of the strategic plan. As such every five years, before the next Strategic Plan is finalised, the ED presents for Board consideration the plans for the salary scale review, including the names of some possible consultancy firms that are being considered. Once the Board has discussed and approved the plan, the ED is entrusted with identifying the right consultant or consultancy firm to undertake the exercise.
• A working group is set up by the Board to oversee the review process. This working group would include the staff representative, representatives from the Management Team and at least one Board member. This team oversees the review process, and together with the ED, clarifies and provides information needed to the consultant.
• Typically, this exercise involves contacting between five to eight national or nationally-based regional development NGOs of similar size as ARROW with a formal request for them to share their salary scale and positions for purposes of review. They are guaranteed confidentiality and also promised a copy of ARROW's salary scale review once it has been completed.
• Salaries are compared against job descriptions that are similar in scope and scale of responsibilities, as different organisations have different titles for various posts.
• Financial and non-financial benefits such as annual leave, annual increment levels, medical insurance, relocation costs for international staff, and other items are taken into consideration.
• There is the inclusion of an ethical analysis of the actual difference in salary scales between different positions, as well as the difference in annual increments between various levels of posts, in one salary review.
• Salary reviews also can re-examine the amount of annual increment per scale, and have this analysed against comparative organisations, as well as the inflation rate at the national level. At certain times where there have been significant price hikes, there could be adjustments made in terms of the increment amount. However, if this is done, a finite period should be clearly stated at the outset, as such things are hard to remove once introduced. This is termed as COLA in Malaysia—Cost of Living Allowance. Eventually, instead of tying it to increments or a proportion of salary, it was instead given as a lump sum amount and removed once the economic situation improved.
• Salary reviews also offer the possibility of reexamining the process of determining entry-level salaries for new recruits (i.e., how do you decide where a new staff member starts on an existing salary scale), the considerations that go into it and the basis for adding years. It also allows for a way of standardising this process across the organisation as many different people may be involved in the recruiting of new staff. These criteria were established in consultation with staff as well as Board and Management.
• The consultant uses all data gathered to make a comparison and analysis of ARROW's salary scale with those of these selected organisations as well as with the “market” rates.
• The consultant also interviews all the staff members to find out their views of their salary and the salary scale. The consultant also meets with the Management Team to solicit their views as well.
• The consultant/s write up a report based on the data gathered and make a set of recommendations to the review working group. This is also accompanied by a formal presentation of the data at a BOD meeting, or a special meeting called for the consultant to meet with the members of the working group and the Board.
• These recommendations are also presented to the staff body, and they are also free to comment on the proposed new salary scale and salary adjustments, if any.
• The BOD considers the recommendations of the consultant and the views of the staff and the MT and come up with a final agreement on a new salary scale, as well as any salary adjustments that may occur as a result. ARROW aims to remunerate on the basis of skill, aptitude and relevant experience, and considers the compensation and benefits offered by other regional organisational settings to ensure we remain competitive.
• Once the decision is made, each staff member is given a letter stating any salary scale change and a copy is filed in her personal file.

Challenges experienced

• The expectations of staff need to be managed from the beginning, as there is always the hope that the review will end in an increase in salaries.
• At times, a salary review can mean that a decrease is recommended, and the Board and the MT need to be prepared on how they will handle this. Normally, this is not implemented as a salary cut, but as amendments to TORs to increase levels of responsibilities borne.
• The issue of confidentiality needs to be addressed in terms of what information is made available to whom, as in the case of the organisation doing the review, individual salary information is affected.

Tips: Lessons from using this process

• Give sufficient time in the process to make decisions on the salary scale review based on principles
• As a public-funded organisation, the issue of privacy of individual salaries will invariably come up, and just like public servants, our scales can be queried. There needs to be organisational clarity of the parts of the information which can be publicly shared (scales) and those that remain private (position or level within the scale).

TOOL 12: Staff work conditions and entitlements

Introduction

This tool describes all the work conditions and entitlements ensured to all staff of ARROW, and an explanation of the staff members' entitlements and rights. It was prepared as one of the first policy documents of ARROW in early 1994, and was reviewed, updated and approved by the BOD in January 2002.

Why was the tool developed?

This document was developed to ensure that the staff was well aware of all their rights, and would not be subject to abuse, discrimination or inequality from their supervisors, ED, BOD and their colleagues. The Board also wanted the management practices of ARROW to conform to the legal requirements of Malaysia, as well as the recommendations of the ILO and be in keeping with the core values of fairness, participation and transparency that ARROW strongly espouses.

How was the tool developed?

This tool was developed by the Founder-Directors using other development NGO policies as reference. The draft document was shared for review with other management specialists in the field for their inputs and advice. It was also discussed with staff before being finalised. It was reviewed and updated again in 2002.

How to use the tool

This tool is an essential reference guide to the management and administration of all staff matters. As such, the ED, Managers and all administration staff needs to be fully familiarised with this document. The tool may be used in the following ways:

• To guide all administrative matters in relation to staff employment and benefits;
• To guide management in decision-making on all staff matters pertaining to their employment contract and benefits;
• To orient new staff on their rights as members of the staff body of ARROW; and,
• To guide staff members when they have questions regarding their entitlements, benefits and rights as a member of the ARROW staff body.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• The workload makes it hard for staff to complete the annual leave provided. It is not just about having a right to annual leave, but the Management enabling it to be taken by reducing workload, which is important.
• There is a tendency for staff to advocate for their rights and confuse the issue of ARROW being an organisation dedicated to championing women's rights to mean championing their rights. It is important to regularly have conversations that distinguish between the rights of marginalised women who are championed, and rights of staff that are to an extent guaranteed by law, and also ensured by ARROW to an extent far greater than many organisations of equal standing.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• Explaining the staff work conditions and benefits should be an integral part of the orientation process to every new staff member. Ensure that changes in policies are also documented and shared with staff members.

TOOL 13: ARROW's Well-being Policy

Introduction

The Well-being Policy is a policy statement that has been added into the Management and Administrative Policies and Procedures manual regarding a budgetary allocation made to promote well-being of staff.

Why was the tool developed?

In its early years the ARROW Board took a view that being well and healthy for women is more than an absence of illness or disease. This view was congruent with the view of the international women's health movement. It wanted to encourage staff to take care of their well-being and to take a preventative approach to their health care. The policy statement was included to institutionalise this principle in the organisation.

How was the tool developed?

The Well-Being Policy statement was developed through a process of dialogue within the Board, and with the ED. The ED took the matter up with the staff body during the staff meetings and their inputs were channelled back to the Board for their consideration.

Well-being Policy¹—What is it?

In acknowledgement of ARROW's perspective on well-being, the ARROW Board allocated a small budget item that would allow each and every staff member to access some form of self-care. There was no restriction on how the small amount could be used as long as it contributed to well-being in the opinion of the recipient. During that initial discussion, the Board made suggestions that the cash amount could be used to cover the cost of a yoga class, a massage or some vitamin supplement but the choice was up to the individual. The benefit (500 Malaysian Ringgit per year per employee) remains in place till this time as a legacy of the holistic views espoused by the women's health movement.

Following is the Well-being Policy Statement:

Staff are entitled to a Well-being Allowance of a flat rate of RM500.00 per staff per year which will he given to the staff in payments of RM250.00 every six months. This may be used on any expenses related to health, medical, dental, alternative treatments, vitamins, exercise and others, which the staff member considers are necessary for her health and well-being, both preventative and for actual treatment.

Challenges experienced in using the tool

• The organisation has not been able to ascertain whether the staff indeed use the additional funds towards their well-being, as this is not monitored. Even so, Management does occasionally receive informal feedback that staff members have used the allowance for supplements and herbs, and we know that this allocation is worth the while.

Tips: Lessons from using the tool

• When staff members feel involved in the creation of circumstances that promote their well-being at work and at home, it is empowering.
• Policies such as the Well-being Policy is an entry point to staff discussions on issues of women's sexual and reproductive health issues broadly, but self-care more specifically.

Chapter 3

Partnerships

This picture shows a human gathering representing a regional meeting of ARROW with its partners and shareholders for discussion on strategy making to establish and improve Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region.

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.

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.

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.

This picture represents a smiling young woman from Cambodia.

A Cambodian young woman

Chapter 4

Building our future

This picture shows an woman is writing on a piece of paper in course of an workshop on sexuality and rights.

The right to sexual pleasure is part of SRHR; At an ARROW workshop on sexuality and rights.

Introduction

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.

PROCESS 9: Strategic planning

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

TOPIC: Investing in people

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:
  1. the mechanisms by which needs in the area of improvement and skills of staff could be identified;
  2. different development options that might be pursued to respond to those stated needs;
  3. 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,
  4. 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:

1. 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.
2. Belief that there will be a good successor
   • Confidence and optimism that there are people who can and want to do the job.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.

Conclusion

This picture shows a gathering of young girls and adult women from Bangladesh who are in smiling face and in a joyful mood.

Community women partners in Bangladesh

ARROW is proud to be 20 years old and has grown from strength to strength since our founding as an organisation. We have managed two successful transitions of Executive Directors, while consistently maintaining organisational stability and programme effectiveness, which we know are not easy to achieve.

In ARK, we chose to focus on some of the key governance and management tools and resources that we have found useful in our own journey. We hope that from what we chose to share, you are able to gain some useful insight on what it has taken for ARROW to build our organisation, and what you might be able to put in place in your own organisational context.

If we were asked to summarise the main lessons learned which have contributed most to our effectiveness as an organisation over 20 years in eight key insights, we would say the following:

• Invest in process: If there is one thing ARROW never cuts corners on, it is process. We have understood from the very beginning the importance of committing to, and giving time for, all organisational processes to unfold in the most participatory and transparent manner. By process, we refer to all the steps that it takes for a group to come to understanding, agreements and decisions over any governance, organisational or programmatic matter in a way that creates a sense of belonging, inclusion, valuing and collective ownership.
• Document, document, document: We have found that the most effective way of ensuring that the organisation moves forward on its ideas, plans and decisions is to diligently document minutes, TORs and programmatic guidelines. ARROW has tried to put down on paper as much of its core values, policies, procedures, practices and key governance decisions as possible. Likewise, we have churned out volumes of internal monitoring and evaluation reports, both quarterly and annual, as a way of keeping careful tabs on progress of our strategic plan and commitments. We believe that there is no better way to preserve organisational memory, and to ensure the consistency, quality and effectiveness of our organisation.
• Bring in the right people: ARROW started with nothing but a real concern coupled with great people, passion and a good measure of pragmatism. To put our organisation together, we were meticulous about selecting and inviting into the organisation the most committed, competent and capable people, whether as members of our staff, the Board of Directors or the Programme Advisory Committee. We have understood that bringing in the best people takes time and effort, but tapping into the best they have to offer and valuing their contributions makes the difference in the organisation. ARROW has been able to grow the way it has because of the people that pour their energies and passions into realising the organisation's mission and vision.
• Believe in partnerships: ARROW's founders looked for partners even when ARROW was still an idea and not yet a reality. They understood then what we firmly believe now, that working in genuine partnership with other people and organisations is the most effective and sustainable way to influence national, regional and global agendas and advocate for lasting social change. Partnerships are like all other human relationships, and require a great deal of time, attention, intent listening and open dialogue to establish trust, mutuality and genuine collaboration.
• Anchor in core values: Although ARROW's full Code of Ethics was only written up some years ago, the organisation has operated from a strongly ethical base from its inception. Since ARROW's founders were rooted in the tradition of the feminist movement, core principles such as social justice, equality and participation were already operationalised in the governance and management practices of the organisation. Anchoring in a core set of agreed upon values has helped guide every aspect of ARROW, from our decision-making, policies and practices to the development and implementation of our strategic plan.
• Focus on real issues: ARROW made an important decision early on to focus its work on issues of women's SRHR. It was an area that the founders were deeply concerned about, but it was also where they could see a collective passion in the region for real socio-political injustices on the ground that needed to be addressed. The combination of collective passion and focus on real issues of concern has kept us all committed. We stay undeterred because we believe that the work we do makes a real difference.
• Understand organisation's role: As a regional organisation, ARROW defined its role as one of providing a joint platform for bringing together diverse individuals and partners who believe in our mission and vision, and in spurring leadership, towards pushing for an agenda that is defined by global South voices and evidence from the ground. We also see our role as joint facilitating and supporting, where needed, the advocacy agendas of national-level organisations. When it was founded, ARROW saw that there were many national organisations working on women's health issues, but no regional organisation playing a role in facilitating connections and creating channels of communication between organisations. We have refined our understanding of this regional role, and balanced needs and demands from inside and outside the organisation to directly take on regional and global advocacy. We have stayed solidly focused on our role as a regional organisation, supported in our clarity by the honest feedback provided by our national partners. We believe that this has been a vital source of our organisational strength.
• There's enough for everyone: Perhaps the most important of the beliefs that have contributed to our sustainability as an organisation is the belief that there is enough for everyone, and that we do not need to compete, hoard or distrust others' intentions. This is belied by the fact that at the very first PAC meeting, ARROW shared its proposals and budgets freely with its PAC members (many of whom they were meeting for the first time). ARROW believed strongly that ideas and information were to be widely disseminated, and that the more you shared, the more there was to share. As the international funding environment has gotten ever more competitive, and women's organisations seem to be pitted against each other for funding, ARROW confirmed in its fundraising policy that as a feminist organisation, it would not in any way seek to undercut other women's organisations, and would share freely of its insights, tools and resources. We believe that this open-handed and optimistic spirit has been central to our confidence and success as an organisation.

Annexes

This picture shows a grassroot level female gathering from Nepal, who are in discussion for safe abortion.

Grassroot women discussing safe abortion in Morang, Nepal.

ANNEXE 1 ARROW Code of Ethics

Introduction

In 2006, the ARROW Board of Directors began a process of developing an organisational Code of Ethics that would guide the organisation and provide a feminist compass to the work that ARROW undertook.

This Code of Ethics is in turn based upon ARROW's mission and long-term objectives¹ which are as follows:

ARROW's mission

ARROW is committed to advocating and protecting women's health rights and needs, particularly in the area of women's sexuality and reproductive health. We believe that good health and wellbeing and access to comprehensive and affordable gender-sensitive health services are a fundamental human right.

ARROW's long term objectives:

1. Health, reproductive health and population policies and programmes are re-oriented to become more accessible, affordable, and comprehensive, and include a gender and rights approach.
2. The women's movement and civil society become stronger and more effective in holding governments accountable to international commitments, influencing policy agendas on women's health and rights, and gaining sustained representation on decision-making structures.
3. Women's health outcomes and women's lives improve, especially for poor and marginalised women and girls, particularly in the area of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and violence against women.

ARROW defines ethics as a set of principles by which behaviour can be judged to be appropriate or inappropriate. This code describes the ethical values believed in and committed to, both individually and collectively by ARROW's Board, Programme Advisory Committee members and staff.

As a feminist organisation, ARROW believes that the principles on which the COE is based include feminist, human rights and humanitarian principles.

How to use the COE

The COE can be used in the work of ARROW in all its aspects from planning, implementation, evaluation and for both staff and Board work. Some uses are:

1. As an ethical guide for daily interpersonal relations and conduct both in the office, staff and Board, within the Board, Programme Advisory Committee and in relationships with partners, donors, meeting participants and all people encountered by the staff and Board in the work of ARROW.²
2. As the basis for the principles and conduct behind policy and procedure development.
3. In personnel appraisals.
4. In defining competencies and competency capacity building training for staff and board.
5. As a guide for any kind of principled or ethical decision making.
6. For guiding and decision making for conflict resolution, grievances and misconduct assertions.
7. As an ethical guide in strategic planning processes, as well as activity planning.

Review of the COE

As with all other ARROW policies, when new, the COE will be reviewed after one year of implementation by the Board and staff to see if and how it was used and how useful it was. Any changes and additions can be made at this stage. As with other ARROW policies, there will be a review every 2 years. It is proposed that the Code is monitored through the development of perception indicators related to the principles within the Code, and feedback sought from different constituent groups — staff, board, PAC and partners.

Scope of Application

The COE applies to all employees, Board Members and PAC Members when they act in representation or on behalf of the organisation.

The Purpose of the Code of Ethics

ARROW's COE serves to:

1. Express ARROW's collective commitment to specific principles and standards of conduct.
2. Clarify ethical responsibilities
3. Help support ARROW's mission and vision.
4. Establish principles and standards that define and guide ethical attitudes and behaviour.
5. Provide the basis for the processing of ethical issues and complaints including prioritising conflicting principles.

Other potential benefits are that it can:

1. Increase ethical sensitivity and judgement.
2. Strengthen support for individuals' moral courage.
3. Help to hone ARROW's sense of identity.

ARROW's Values3

• Commitment to quality: Striving to produce a high quality in everything we do (both in terms of outputs and processes) as high quality is critical to effectiveness.⁴
• Fairness: Respecting peoples' equal right to participate and to be treated equally well and to develop as human beings irrespective of their differences of position, education, religious beliefs, personality, body size, class, race and sexual preference etc. [this value is an important component of equity], and to remain secular and non-sectarian.⁵
• Social justice: Striving to recognise and address the various power hierarchies of class, gender, race, sexuality etc., and being aware of power relations and the ways in which patriarchy and other social and economic systems manifest themselves, and the importance of the origins of the feminist movement in subverting patriarchy.
• Generosity: Sharing information, resources and time wholeheartedly and responsively, rather than hoarding or clinging, believing that ARROW will not be depleted by sharing.⁶
• Honesty: Being straightforward and to tell the truth, but to ensure appropriateness of venue, delivery and methodology, and to be aware of and listen to all perspectives.
• Innovation or Creativity: Constantly doing new things or trying new processes in order to be more effective.7
• Participatory: Consulting and involving staff, the Board, the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) and partners in strategic and operational decisions and sharing information in the belief that more informed and active contributions will lead to organisational effectiveness and quality as well as work satisfaction and commitment to ARROW.⁸
• Transparency: Being open and honest about information and decisions as critical to achieving real participation and fairness.

THE CODE OF ETHICS: Commitment to quality

We commit to:

1. Ensuring that we prepare for and implement each task through our best effort.
2. Seeking feedback from our peers and relevant stakeholders on how to further improve a task to achieve a high level of quality.
3. Seriously giving time and follow up to personnel appraisals, both our own and others.
4. Accepting feedback and criticism on our performance without denial and defensiveness.
5. Rigorously evaluating our own and the organisation's impact, achievements, lessons learned, and the ways to improve impact and achievement.
6. Ensuring all communications, both spoken and written, are very clear, accurate, comprehensive, timely, and polite.
7. Ensuring reports and publications are clear, accurate, and timely, designed creatively, tailored to needs and are highly valued and utilised by the target groups.
8. Identifying our strengths and weaknesses honestly and developing and implementing a plan to develop our competencies to an excellent level.
9. Ensuring that no harm is done to women or others involved in ARROW monitoring and research projects.
10. Ensuring ARROWs finances are extremely well managed, monitored and audited and lead to excellent sustainability of the organisation.

Fairness

We commit to:

1. Providing and requesting salaries and work conditions which are fair according to market rate assessments and existing salaries of ARROW staff.
2. Ensuring personnel appraisals are based on careful assessment of evidence of achievements and competency following procedures.
3. Developing, implementing and following grievance procedures when appropriate.
4. Being unbiased in perception and decision making related to people we work with so as their class, race, religion, size, personality, sex, sexual preference, colour, do not make a difference to how we regard and treat them.
5. Treating all staff, Board, PAC and partners equally and not giving special favours and privileges to those we know better or like more.
6. Ensuring that the principle of ‘do no harm’ is incorporated within all of ARROW's research work, and that the organisation subscribes to the highest level of research ethics when conducting research or evidence generation work.
7. Ensure that we do not privilege or promote or align with any religious or sectarian interests or positions or organisations.

Social justice

We commit to:

1. Striving to recognise and address the various power hierarchies of class, gender, race, sexuality etc.
2. Continually striving to be aware of and discussing new issues of gender inequity in the work place and at home.
3. Pointing out any discriminating ARROW attitudes, policy and practice based on gender roles/differences, class, race or sexuality and trying to rectify this.
4. Providing and accessing appropriate maternity leave and breast feeding breaks according to ILO guidelines and family leave and encouraging colleagues to access these.
5. Following and encouraging flexi work schedules of beginning and ending the work day in acknowledgement of gender roles and family responsibilities.
6. Ensuring that all relevant policies, procedures and the work environment are gender- sensitive and emphasise safety from gender violence and discrimination.
7. Respecting equally men who work with ARROW and participate in meetings, ensuring they feel comfortable and are not marginalised.
8. Ensure all project proposals are equitable in the distribution of resources between local, national and regional counterparts involved in the project implementation.

Generosity

We commit to:

1. Sharing fully all information and resources proactively and when requested especially the most useful and critical.
2. Always giving slightly more than less when there is a choice, to ensure people are appropriately reimbursed and compensated.
3. Being non-judgemental about peoples' actions, understanding their intentions, motivations, circumstances and the evidence.
4. Responding wholeheartedly and prompdy to requests for assistance, especially to partners in need.
5. Listening fully to others and giving them the time they need to express themselves.
6. Expressing genuine appreciation and gratitude to colleagues, Board, PAC, partners and others.

Honesty

We commit to:

1. Providing accurate and complete information of all kinds and wherever appropriate, to management, staff, funders, the public and partners.
2. Never distorting, misleading, hiding or misrepresenting information for personal or the organisation's gain.
3. Keeping completely confidential, information so requested and not disclosing to outsiders, personal information about ARROW which may not be in the organisation's interest.
4. Expressing our views and comments openly and fully yet with sensitivity on concerns and issues for the benefit of the organisation.
5. Providing accurate and complete claims, reports, leave, travel requests and financial reports, statements, funder's reports and annual reports.
6. Using ARROW property and resources for ARROW work only, following all guidelines on equipment and supplies.
7. Declaring a conflict of interest (COI) in personnel recruitment, contracts, supplies, consultancies etc. and following COI policies.
8. Speaking out when there is clear evidence of dishonesty at any level.
9. Giving work related comments directly yet sensitively to the person rather than behind their back, refraining from personal and judgemental comments.
10. Keeping the individual and organisational promises and agreements we made, including agreements such as adhering to a flexi time schedule.
11. We commit to ensure that feedback and confidential information given to management and board be handled with utmost delicacy and care while finding a solution.

Innovation or creativity

We commit to:

1. Dreaming big, bold ideas that have the chance of becoming a new plan, project, strategy or process.
2. Trying new ways of seeing and doing things through loosening and opening up rather than tightening up and clinging to old ways.
3. Listening to and encouraging the full expression of new ideas by all.
4. Being confident, courageous and willing to implement the new ideas.
5. Acknowledging and appreciating creativity and innovation and their impact.

Participation

We commit to:

1. Ensuring that ARROW includes participatory processes in all aspects of the work with Board, PAC, staff and partners, in particular strategic planning and evaluation.
2. Sharing chairing of meetings and the other facilitative work of the organisation so that leadership is not the responsibility of only a few.
3. Planning and implementing participatory processes into all aspects of our work, believing that people have a right to participate in decision making and that quality, effectiveness and ownership will be better.
4. Asking for input into draft agendas of all meetings and seminars etc. so that others can contribute to identifying issues and content.
5. Sharing facilitation of leadership in meetings so that others will experience this responsibility and also develop their capacities.
6. Ensuring we do not dominate in meetings, talk too often or put people down to the extent that this hinders the participation of others.
7. Encouraging the participation of peers, staff, partners and PAC and Board in the planning, implementation and evaluation of ARROW.

Transparency

We commit to:

1. Openly sharing among staff all information, documents, plans and financial statements which are not specified as confidential, through procedures and methods established for this.
2. Explaining the reasons honestly for management decisions made.
3. Following procedures for sharing information transparently.
4. Having closed sessions in meetings only on matters agreed to be confidential in ARROW such as individual staff salaries and individual staff competencies/performance.
5. Openly explaining and minuting the reasons behind Board and/or management team decisions and comments.

ETHICS GOVERNING FUND-RAISING, COMPETITION FOR RESOURCES AND INVESTMENT OF GENERAL FUND RESERVES

1. ARROW should conduct a preliminary background check on all new donor partners with whom we choose to cooperate. We should ensure that the requirements of the donor organisation do not in any way impinge on ARROW's political independence.
2. ARROW should apply as far as possible, for global or regional donor fund allocations, so as not to compete with national level organisations who are attempting to secure resources for work within the national context.
3. ARROW's General Fund investments should refrain from choosing financial packages that involve investment in the following:
   • Mining
   • Oil and Gas
   • Defense or Arms Development
   • Tobacco
   • Alcohol

Orientation, enforcement and violation of the COE

Orientation

All new staff and Board members will be given a copy of the COE document and the opportunity to clarify any questions. The COE will be included in the staff and Board formal orientation programmes.

Enforcement and violation

All staff and Board members are encouraged to ensure that the COE is used and becomes a positive ethical tool for both behaviour and development of policies and procedures. Emphasis is on using it for guidance and inspiration rather than as a stick for misconduct.

When grossly violated, the COE can be used as a guide for establishing poor performance in the probation or annual appraisal of staff and as misconduct as defined by the work conditions and entitlements document.

When the COE is not followed and there is considered to be a minor but important violation by staff, this can be handled informally by the supervisor, manager, ED and Board in an attempt to inspire better behaviour by referring to the COE. Procedures on this may need to be developed.

When a staff or Board member feels there is a gross violation which puts the organisation at risk (this needs to be defined), a formal complaint can be made to the COE committee to be set up and comprised of nominated staff and Board members. This will consist of 2 staff and 2 Board members. The Committee could also have either 2 PAC members or 2 Friends of ARROW members who are based in Malaysia. This would help in the balance of power if the Board itself is complained about.

This committee when set up, may choose to use tools from other COE's to assess and decide if there is indeed a violation or not. The committee would then report to both the Board and Staff.

Paper prepared by Rashidah Abdullah and Saira Shameem on 27^th November 2008. Amended based on May 2009 BOD meeting discussions, December 2009.

Above amendments accepted at May 2010 Board meeting with highlighted areas requiring feedback and development based on implementation of the Code as it currently appears.

ANNEXE 2 ARROW Conflict of Interest Policy for Members of ARROW's Board of Directors and Staff

1. Policy Principle

The purpose of the Conflict of Interest Policy is to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the governance body of ARROW and of all members of its staff are made in the interests of the women for whom ARROW advocates, and to protect the interests of ARROW when it is contemplating entering into a transaction, contract or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of a Director or a staff member. A Director or staff member may not use her position in ARROW or confidential information obtained by her relating to ARROW in order to achieve a financial benefit for herself or for a third party, including family or another non-profit organisation. ARROW is committed to maximising appropriate transparency in its decision-making processes and documentation.

2. Definitions

1. 2.1 Staff shall refer to the professional staff of ARROW (full-time or short-term), which shall include all direct or in-direct reports to the Executive Director, and any other staff member designated by the Board of Directors.
2. 2.2 Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration, as well as gifts or favours that are substantial in nature.
3. 2.3 Family includes the spouse, siblings and their spouses, parents or children and their spouses.
4. 2.4 Financial interest occurs when a Director or staff member has:
   • An existing or potential interest in any entity with which ARROW has a transaction, contract or other arrangement;
   • A compensation arrangement with ARROW;
   • An interest in or compensation arrangement with an entity with which ARROW is negotiating a transaction, contract or other arrangement;
   • An interest in or a compensation arrangement with any entity whose business will be directly affected by a decision or action of ARROW.
5. 2.5 Interested Director shall mean any Director of ARROW, including the Executive Director, while staff member shall mean any employee of ARROW, who has a material financial interest as defined in 2.3 or who serves as a Director or equivalent of any entity with which ARROW has a transaction, contract or other arrangement.

3. Procedures

1. 3.1 The ARROW Board places great importance on making clear any existing or potential Conflicts of Interest for its members and members of the ARROW staff. All such conflicts shall be declared by the Director or staff concerned and documented in either the Board of Directors Conflict of Interests Register or the Staff Conflicts of Interest Register. An interested Director will abstain from participation in the Board's consideration of the proposed transaction, contract or arrangement from which benefit might arise; the same goes for any staff member during decision-making.
2. 3.2 Any business, professional or personal matter which is or could be a Conflict of Interest involving the individual and her role and relationship with ARROW must be declared and registered in an ARROW Conflicts of Interest Register. For the Board, all such entries in the Register shall be presented to the Board and minuted at the first Board meeting following entry in the register. For the staff, all such entries shall be registered at the Staff meeting, while Managers and the ED shall register their Conflict of Interest at the Management Team meetings. The Management Team meeting minutes that include the Registry of COI of Management Team members will be shared with all the staff during the subsequent Staff meeting.
3. 3.3 The Agenda of each Board of Directors or staff meeting will be presented in advance of the meeting so that the Directors or staff members have an opportunity to become aware of business terms which may present to them a Conflict of Interest. Declarations of Interest will be a standard item on the Agenda of each meeting of the ARROW Board of Directors or Staff or Management Meeting, preceding the discussion of business.
4. 3.4 Where a conflict of interest is identified and/or registered, the Interested Director or staff is not permitted to participate in any decision on that topic or topics felt by the Meeting to be closely related. Preferably, the Interested Director or staff member should leave the room during discussions leading to a decision and during the decision taking.
5. 3.5 The ARROW Board of Directors or Management Team may exercise its discretion and invite an Interested Director or staff member, respectively, to remain present as a participant in, or as an observer of the discussion of items for which there is a conflict of interest, or decision taking thereof.
6. 3.6 The ARROW Board of Directors (in the case of Directors) or Management Team (in the case of staff) shall determine whether ARROW can obtain a more advantageous transaction, contract or arrangement with reasonable efforts from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest.
7. 3.7 If a more advantageous transaction, contract or other arrangement is not reasonably attainable under circumstances that would not give rise to a conflict of interest, the Board or Management Team shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested Directors or Management Team members whether the arrangement is in ARROW's best interest and whether it is fair and reasonable to ARROW and shall make a decision accordingly.
8. 3.9 The minutes of the relevant meetings shall contain the names of the persons who were present for discussion and votes relating to a transaction or arrangement in connection with a conflict of interest, the contents of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement, and a record of any votes taken in connection.
9. 3.10 In the case of conflicts of interest for staff members that are unresolved at the Staff meeting level, these shall be referred to the Management Team for resolution. Conflicts of interest that are unresolved at the Management Team level shall be referred to the ARROW Board of Directors for resolution.

4. Violations

1. 4.1 If the Board has reasonable cause to believe that a Director has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall inform the Director of the basis for the belief and offer the Director an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. Meanwhile, the Management Team shall also do the same for the staff who has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest.
2. 4.2 If after hearing, the response of the Director and making relevant inquiries, the Board determines that the Director has failed in fact to disclose, it can institute disciplinary and corrective action. On the other hand, for ARROW staff, if after the same process, the Management Team determines that the individual has failed in fact to disclose, it can refer the matter to the ARROW Board of Directors.
3. 4.3 The violation of this Conflict of Interest Policy is a serious matter and may constitute “cause” for removal or termination of a Director or staff member, in accordance with ARROW Articles of Association, or the termination of any contractual relationship ARROW may have with the interested individual.

The Conflict of Interest Policy for ARROW Board Members was amended and approved at the May 2008 ARROW Board Meeting. The Conflict of Interest Policy for Staff was amended and approved at the April 2007 ARROW Board Meeting.

ANNEXE 3 Terms of Reference of the Board of Directors

(Extracted from the By-Lows of ARROW)

Role and functions of the Board

The Memorandum and Articles of Association of ARROW outline the main responsibilities of the Board which are summarised as follows:

• Terms of Board Members: Board members will be appointed for a term of three years. Renewal for a second term of three years is acceptable. The exception is the Founder-Director who may remain a Board member until she resigns or dies (as stated in the Memorandum of Articles of Association). Appointment letters will be issued stating the specific term dates and responsibilities of Board members.
• Chair of the Board: Board meetings will be chaired by collectively sharing this responsibility and allocating agenda items. The Board will function as a collective without a nominated chairperson.
• Role of Malaysian Board Members: Malaysian Board members have additional responsibility due to their geographical location. These are:
  • Signing Audited Accounts with one Director taking responsibility as “the main Director with financial responsibility;”
  • Signing BOD Memorandum for the Company Secretary;
  • Cheque signing in the absence of one staff signatory;
  • Signing the Annual Return to the Registrar of Societies.

The ARROW Board, however, has delegated the operational responsibilities to the Executive Director, and thus plays a governance role.

Responsibilities of the Board

Specifically, the Board is responsible for:

• The appointment of the Executive Director;
• Ensuring ARROW's financial policy, procedures and practices are in order and that they contribute to financial sustainability; and
• Appointing the external auditor and endorsing the accuracy of the Audited Accounts as recommended by the Executive Director.

In addition, the Board is responsible for the following as defined by ARROW:

1. Finance
   • Approve Annual Audited Accounts, which includes a statement that accounting and financial procedures are in order.
   • Approve 5-year budget as part of Work Programme Budget.
   • Approve Annual Operations Budget and any major changes during the year.
   • Comment on Quarterly or Half Year Finance Statements/Report variances compared to Budget from Management Team.
   • Approve Financial Guidelines which include responsibilities of ARROW staff to authorise expenditure.
   • Approve the setting up of any funds such as Operational Reserve Funds, Retrenchment Fund, Staff Welfare Funds.
   • Approve any investment of ARROW's surplus funds.
   • Approve purchase of property.
   • Review staff salaries and approve any changes to scales, etc.
   • Sign cheques as the BOD signatory to ARROW staff group.
2. Personnel Matters
   • Approve any changes to staff positions in terms of numbers and structure.
   • Interview and appoint the Executive Director and develop/approve the Job Description.
   • Consult with the Executive Director on appointment of senior ARROW staff.
   • Annual Performance Appraisal of the ED.
   • Supervision of the Executive Director through feedback on Executive Director's Annual Work Plan, Annual Reports and other reports given to the BOD and in supervision sessions requested by Executive Director or initiated by the BOD.
   • Follow grievance procedures if staff complaint is related to Executive Director.
   • Approve double increment for staff recommended for excellent performance by Executive Director (and for Executive Director's post).
   • Approve any re-employment of staff after Retirement Age.
   • Approve termination by ARROW of any staff, besides fixed term contracts.
   • Amend, approve and review the Staff Work Conditions and Entitlement Policy Document.
   • Amend, approve and review the Human Resource Development Policy Document.
3. Work Programme
   • Review and approve the 5-year Work Programme.
   • Review and approve the Annual Work Programme and Budget.
   • Contribute to, review and approve the ARROW mission, and long-term objectives.
   • Contribute to, review and approve the Annual Report to funders and the Popular Annual Report for stakeholders.
   • Contribute to and approve Terms of Reference of External Programme and Organisational Evaluations.
   • Review and approve major funding proposals for core funding and projects.
4. BOD Policies
   • Develop and approve BOD Terms of Reference.
   • Decide on Appointment of new BOD members and any extension of a 2nd term.
   • Elect a Chair and any other office bearers/signatories.
5. PAC Policies
   • Approve PAC Terms of Reference.
   • Approve new PAC members and any extension of a 2nd term.
6. Requirements of Companies Act for ARROW as a Company
   • Review and amend the Memorandum of Association and the Articles of Association.
   • Sign any BOD Memorandum to the Registrar of Societies regarding appointment of new BOD members, opening of bank accounts etc.
   • Sign the Annual Submission of Accounts and Annual Return to the Registrar of Companies before 30 June each year.
   • Sign Notice of BOD and AGM Meetings and the Minutes of BOD and AGM Meetings.
   • Hold two BOD meetings and one AGM, ensuring meeting notice is given at least seven days before the meeting.

ANNEXE 4 ARROW Board of Directors' Competency Assessment Tool

Core Competency	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4
1. Shared beliefs & values (Source: M. Casey Tool 1.05)	No common set of basic beliefs and values (e.g., social, cultural, etc.) exists within organisation	Common set of basic beliefs and values exist in some groups within organisation, but is not shared broadly; beliefs and values are only partially aligned with organisational purpose and constituents norms, or are rarely harnessed to produce impact	Common set of basic beliefs and values held by many people within organisation; helps provide a sense of connection to organisation; beliefs and values are aligned with organisational purpose and constituents' norms, and are occasionally harnessed to produce impact	Common set of basic beliefs and values exists and is widely shared within organisation; helps provide a sense of connection to organisation and a clear direction for behaviour; beliefs and values are embodied by leader but are also timeless and stable across leadership changes; beliefs and values clearly support organisational purpose, are in line with constituents' norms, and are consistently harnessed to produce impact.
2. Board composition & commitment (Source: M. Casey Tool 1.106)	Membership with limited diversity in fields of practice and expertise; drawn from a narrow spectrum of constituencies relevant to the organisation; little or no relevant experience; commitment to organisation's success, vision and mission is unclear; meetings are sporadic and/or attendance is sometimes poor	Some diversity in fields of practice and expertise; membership represents a few different constituencies relevant to organisation; some evidence of commitment to organisation; solid evidence of commitment to organisation's success, vision and mission; regular, purposeful meetings are well planned and attendance is consistently good; regular subcommittee meetings	Good diversity in fields of practice and expertise; membership represents most constituencies relevant to the organisation's success, vision, and mission, regular, purposeful meetings are well-planned and attendance is consistently good; regular sub-committee meetings	Membership with broad variety in fields of practice and expertise, and drawn from the full spectrum of constituencies relevant to the organisation, includes functional and issue area expertise, proven track record of learning about the organisation and addressing its issues; consistently demonstrated commitment to the organisation's success, mission, and vision, regular purposeful meetings are well-planned and attendance is consistently strong; regular meeting of focused sub-committees
3. Governing Board commitment and effectiveness on SRHR research, monitoring and advocacy (Source: ARROW Tool)	10% or less of Governing Board includes persons with SRHR expertise	The Governing Board includes 11–32% person with SRHR expertise, and 1–19% with research, monitoring and advocacy experience 11–33% of the Governing Board members are from government or private health corporations. The Governing Board meets once a year, endorses policy decisions suggested by leadership, demands legal accountability, but rarely accountability in areas such as performance and legal matters.	The Governing Board includes between 33% to 50% people with SRHR expertise; 20–40% people with research, monitoring and advocacy experience; and less than 10% of members are from government or private health corporations. The Governing Board meets once in six months; takes policy decisions, effectively on areas listed in level 4; and demands accountability with regard to performance and legal matters.	The Governing Board includes more than 50% of persons with SRHR expertise, and more than 40% with research, monitoring and advocacy experience. The members of governing Board are totally independent of government and private health corporations. The Governing Board are totally independent of government and private health corporations. The Governing Board meets once in four month; takes policy decisions on SRHR monitoring, research, advocacy and accountability effectively; and, holds the organisation accountable in three respect s legally, financially and with regard to performance.
4. Board governance (Source: M Casey Tool 1.07)	Roles of legal board, advisory board, and management are unclear; board rarely scrutinises budgets, holds CEO/ED accountable, or operates according to formal procedures	Roles of legal board, advisory board, and management are clear; board functions according to bylaws, reviews budget, and occasionally sets organisational direction and targets, but does not regularly review CEO/ED performance, monitor potential conflicts of interest, scrutinise audits, or review IRS and state filings	Roles and legal board, advisory board and management are clear and function well; board reviews budgets, audits, IRS and state filings, size of board set for maximum effectiveness with formal nomination process; board co-defines performance targets and actively encourages CEO/ED to meet targets, annual review of CEO/ED's performance, but board not prepared or fire CEO/ED	Legal board, advisory board, and management work well together from clear roles; board fully understands and fulfils fiduciary duties; size of board set for maximum effectiveness with rigorous nomination process; board actively defines performance targets and holds CEO/ED fully accountable; board empowered and prepared to hire for fire CEO/ED if necessary
5. Board involvement & support (Source: M Casey Tool 1.08)	Provide little direction, support, and accountability to leadership; not fully informed about materials and other major organisational matters; largely “feel-good” support	Provide occasional direction, support and accountability to leadership to leadership; generally informed about all material matters in a timely manner; input and responses often solicited	Provide direction, support, and accountability to leadership; fully informed about all material matters; input and responses actively sought and valued; full participant in major decisions	Provide strong direction support, and accountability to leadership and engaged as a strategic resource; communication between board and leadership reflects mutual respect, appreciation for roles and responsibilities, shared commitment, and valuing of collective wisdom
6. CEO/ED organisational leadership/effectiveness (Source: M. Casey Tool 1.10)	Some difficulty building trust and rapport with others; micromanages projects; shares little of own experiences as developmental/coaching tool; inconsistent attention to organisational vision	Responsive to opportunities from others to work together, generally confident in others ability to be successful; shares own experience and expertise; visible commitment to organisation and its vision	Actively and easily builds rapport and trust with others, effectively encourages others to succeed; shares relevant experience and expertise, yet gives others freedom to work their own way, try out new ideas, and grow; shows constant commitment to organisation and its vision; inspires others around vision	Constantly establishing successful, win-win relationships with others, both within and outside the organisation, delivers consistent, positive, and reinforcing messages to motivate people, finds or creates special opportunities to promote people's development, lives the organisation's vision, compelling articulates path to achieving vision that enables others to see where they are going
7. Board and CEO/ED appreciation of power issues (Source: M. Casey Tool 1.13)	No explicit attention given to power issues (e.g., of race and class)	Power issues occasionally acknowledged and discussed; policies and/or procedures developed on an ad hoc basis to address these issues	Power issues regularly acknowledged and discussed; basic policies and/or procedures exist to address these issues	Power issues regularly acknowledged and discussed; well established policies and procedures exist to address these issues, and are routinely reviewed and revised

ANNEXE 5 Job Description of the Executive Director

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1. ORGANISATIONAL CONTEXT

Description of ARROW and Organisational Context

The Asian-Pacific Resource and Research Centre for Women (ARROW) was formed in 1993 as a not-for-profit organisation which works to promote the reorientation of health, population and family planning policies to include women's and gender-perspectives. Current priorities for ARROW are women's rights to comprehensive, accessible and quality health services, the adoption of abroad sexual and reproductive health and rights approach, women-centred and gender-sensitive health policies and programmes and the recognition of violence against women as an important women's health concern. ARROW has a computerised Documentation Centre on women's health, produces a regular series of publications and is engaged in monitoring and research projects.

ARROW's strategies are:

• To advocate for policy and programme reorientation through the acquisition, production and distribution of practical materials to individuals and organisations accessed through a strategic database developed for Asia and the Pacific; and
• To monitor and evaluate change in policies and programmes through regional action research in partnership with women's NGOs involved in national and international advocacy.

Main programme activities of ARROW have been the production of publications; the development and maintenance of a documentation centre and information services; and research activities, particularly research co-ordination.

ARROW operates from Kuala Lumpur but works in the interest of all women in the region of Asia and the Pacific. Governance of ARROW is by a Board of Directors. ARROW seeks advice and support from a Programme Advisory Committee which meets annually.

Philosophy of ARROW

Vision statement

An equal, just and equitable world, where every woman enjoys her full sexual and reproductive rights.

Mission statement

To promote and defend women's rights and needs, particularly in the areas of health and sexuality, and to reaffirm their agency to claim these rights.

Long-term programme objectives

1. Systems, policies and programmes are reoriented to:

   • Uphold gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights; and
   • Ensure that health systems deliver comprehensive, gender-sensitive and rights-based services for sexual reproductive health that are accessible, just, equitable and of the highest quality.

2. Women's movements and civil society are strong and effective in:

   • Influencing policy agenda on women's health, sexuality and rights;
   • Holding governments and donors accountable to international and national commitments; and
   • Gaining sustained representation on decisionmaking structures.
3. Women's lives and health outcomes improve, particularly in the area of SRHR, especially for poor and marginalised women.

Practice Principles

In accordance with the organisation's mission statement, all staff employed by ARROW are expected to have an active commitment to women's rights and the advancement of women's well-being. It is expected that this commitment will be evident in all interactions within ARROW and with the community of stakeholders advocating for change to social, environmental, political, and financial barriers to health on behalf of the women of Asia and the Pacific.

2. ROLE CONTEXT

The Executive Director's role is to provide leadership to the organisation, programme and management team in terms of vision, strategic planning, and overseeing processes to ensure a high quality programme and sustainable and effective organisation.

3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION

3.1 Organisational Development

• Provide leadership in long-term vision in terms of ARROW's mission.
• Lead strategic thinking in Policy development, organisational effectiveness, organisational and personnel structure and processes, and programme evaluation.
• Ensure that the mission, interests and reputation of the organisation are a priority of staff and volunteers, and are not compromised by any inappropriate action.
• Oversee development of excellent proposals and successful negotiation processes with potential funders.
• Lead the Management Team to provide substantive contributions to ARROW's organisational development.
• Lead productive Management Team Meetings and staff meetings.
• Consult and provide comprehensive and strategic reports and information on the progress of the organisation and programme to the Board of Directors and Programme Advisory Committee.
• Provide technical input or consultancy on request to international organisations, governments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are stakeholders of ARROW's programme and/or identify expertise outside the organisation.
• Represent ARROW on appropriate International and Regional Advisory Boards, Technical Committees, etc. of international organisations, government and non-government organisations (NGOs).
• Promote the work of ARROW to strategic individuals and organisations and encourage their participation in the programme.
• Ensure that all ARROW publications reflect the values and mission of ARROW.

3.2 Programme Planning and Development

• Be responsible for high quality planning, implementation, and evaluation of an integrated and effective programme relevant to ARROW's objectives.
• Ensure that input from relevant policies, programmes, consultative bodies (e.g. Advisory Committee), and outcomes of conferences are included into the programme to enable it to be ‘on track.’
• Provide substantial technical inputs when necessary to publication development, meetings and other aspects of implementation of the programme when a high level of expertise is required and/or identify and elicit such expertise outside the organisation.

3.3 Human Resource

• Assist management staff to develop individual and programme/project work plans where appropriate.
• Provide regular supervision to management staff and share supervision of the Administrative Assistant/Secretary with the Manager, Administration and Operations.
• Ensure personnel policies and procedures are in place, implemented and evaluated for effective and fair recruitment, remuneration, promotion, development and appraisal of ARROW staff.
• Oversee personnel recruitment processes for senior positions in ARROW.

3.4 Finance and Legal

• Ensure that ARROW complies with statutory, legal and other requirements according to relevant Malaysian laws (Companies Act, Labour Act etc.).
• Ensure plans and procedures are developed and implemented for ARROW's financial sustainability, efficiency, and accountability to the Board and to funders.

4. Accountability

The Executive Director is responsible to the Board of Directors.

ANNEXE 6 Executive Director Performance Appraisal Form

This ARROW logo represents a part of female hand and fingers in shape of a mouthpiece for establishing women's rights.

Strictly Confidential

Name : ___ Section : ___

Designation : ___ Date Joined : ___

Period Under Review: ___

Instructions & Rating System:

1. The appraiser is advised to read the instructions carefully to facilitate the completion of the Performance Appraisal Form.
2. The appraiser is required to adhere to the following rating criteria throughout the appraisal exercise:

1	2	3	4	5
Below average performance. Although some targets are met, close supervision and coaching are required.	Reasonable performance. Meets most, but not all, basic target areas and expectations.	Competent performance. Meets all basic target areas. Has significant strengths in areas that count.	Very competent performance. Exceeds targets in some areas, while meeting all other targets. Continually adds value to ARROW.	Outstanding performance. Highly competent staff that exceeds targets in a majority of areas. Independently delivers results.

SECTION 1 — MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS / CORE RESPONSIBILITIES

Instructions to Appraiser: The employee's overall performance shall be assessed in accordance with major work tasks accomplished, projects undertaken and core responsibilities assigned. At least five (5) most critical major accomplishments/core responsibilities must be identified. Please use Rating Scales 1–5 when filling the “Rating” column.

No.	KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS / MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS (May include process indicators and/or output indicators)	RISK ASSESSMENT (Statement of external variables that could impact on achievements)	Rating
1
2
3
4
5
Total Score
	Additional Questions Regarding Attitudes within Work Areas	Comments
6.	Ability to meet work plan schedules and targets on time, and at an appropriate standard of quality.
7.	Indicate any assignments that were performed in a particularly effective way.
8.	Review the list of job duties — are all being carried out? Any additional functions being done?
9.	Adequacy of supervision and/or assistance of supervisor? Were there enough supervision sessions?
10.	Ability to supervise and/or develop staff (where applicable).
11.	Staff's attitude towards ARROW

SECTION 2 — CORE COMPETENCIES

Instructions to Appraiser: Core Competencies ore observable qualities used to drive effective performance. Please use Rating Scales 1–5 when filling the “Rating” column. Some of the core competencies used may differ for respective POs, based on the requirements of their individual job descriptions.

B. ARROW's COMPETENCY DIMENSIONS

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP	IMPACT AND INFLUENCE	MANAGING GROUP PROCESSES	TEAM LEADERSHIP	RELEVANT SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE	STRATEGIC THINKING	NEED FOR ACHIEVEMENT	COMMUNICATION
RATING
Total Score

SECTION 3 — ATTITUDES & VALUES

Instructions to Appraiser: Attitudes and Core Values are predetermined to assess the Manager's organisational fit. Please use Rating Scales 1–5 when filling the “Rating” column.

No.	Core Attitudes and Values	Rating
1.	SELF-MANAGEMENT Having the ability for effective time management, professional conduct, self-discipline, self-motivation and priority-setting.
2.	INITIATIVE Taking the initiative in doing new things or trying new processes in order to be more effective.
3.	CONCERN FOR QUALITY Striving to produce a high quality in everything we do (outputs and processes) as high quality is critical to effectiveness.
4.	PARTICIPATORY NATURE & TEAMWORK Consulting and involving staff, the Board, the Programme Advisory Committee (PAC) and partners in strategic and operational decisions and sharing information in the belief that more informed and active contributions will contribute to organisational effectiveness and quality as well as personnel work satisfaction and commitment to ARROW.
5.	INTEGRITY Being open and honest about information and decisions as critical to achieving real participation and fairness.
6.	FAIRNESS & RESPECT Respecting peoples' equal right to participate and to be treated equally well and to develop as human beings irrespective of their differences of position, education, personality, body size, class, race and sexual preference. (This value is an important component of equity.)
7.	STAMINA AND ADAPTABILITY Physical and mental capability for hard work, handle multiple work demands simultaneously, and ability to remain flexible in adapting to diverse work environments as well as work demands.
8.	WORK RELATIONSHIPS Effectiveness in working harmoniously with other staff members and persons outside the organisation in official contacts
9.	PUNCTUALITY As regards to working hours, meeting attendance, etc.
Total Score

SECTION 4 — OVERALL RATING / COMMENTS

Instructions to Appraiser: The rating for each section is required to be transferred to the column provided below for computation. Weightage has been calculated according to the following ratio: Accomplishments 60%: Competencies 20%: Values 20%.

Sections	Total Score	Weighted Average
1 — KPIs/Major Accomplishments		Total Score for Section 1 / 25 x 3 =	/3
2 — Core Competencies		Total Score for Section 2 / 40 x 1 =	/1
3 — Core Values		Total Score for Section 3 / 45 x 1 =	/1
		Overall Rating	/5

SECTION 5 — STAFF DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Instructions to Appraiser: The appraiser is required to highlight the training and developmental needs of the appraisee in this Section. Considering the appraisee's overall effectiveness during the review period, identify any areas which, if further develop, would strengthen the appraisee's overall performance.

No.	Competency (Knowledge and skills)	Proposed Training & Developmental Action Plans	Urgency
			Moderate	High

SECTION 6 — SIGNATURES BY APPRAISER AND APPRAISEE

Appraiser's Signature	Executive Director's Signature
Name :	Name :
Designation :	Designation :
Date :	Date :
Appraisee's Signature	Staffs Response to supervisor's appraisal:
Name :
Designation :
Date :
Recommendation of supervisor regarding probation or annual increment. :

ANNEXE 7 ARROW Work Conditions And Entitlement Policy

Introduction

This document was developed with the intention of explaining and protecting the rights of all ARROW staff, as general workers and as women, so that they would not be subject to abuse, discrimination or inequality from their supervisors, the Executive Director, the Board of Directors and their colleagues.

It conforms with the legal requirements of the Malaysian Employment Act 1955 and Employment (Amendment) Act 1998, and the Industrial Relations Act, but as the Employment Act is only applicable to staff whose wages do not exceed RM1,500, the Act applies to a small minority of staff. In many aspects, the document goes beyond this, guided by ILO recommendations, the principles and goals of the women's NGO movement and the values of ARROW as a women's health and rights focused organisation. It was reviewed and approved and finalised by ARROW's Board of Directors in January 2002. It is based on the ARROW's Work Conditions and Entitlements Document, February 1994.

2.1 PROBATION

1. 2.1.1 A staff on first engagement shall have a three or six-month probationary period depending on their experience and the contract period, in order to determine ability for satisfactorily carrying out the tasks required within the job description. A performance appraisal will be carried out before the Probation ends to recommend confirmation in the post if the performance is satisfactory, or termination, or an extension of a further three-month probation if performance is not at an acceptable level. The probationary period may be waived at the discretion of the Executive Director.
2. 2.1.2 When confirmed, a letter of confirmation will be given to the staff.
3. 2.1.3 During the probation period, one month's notice on either side is required for termination of services.

2.2 REMUNERATION

1. 2.2.1 Staff shall be paid salaries according to the scale stated in their appointment letters.
2. 2.2.2 A staff who has shown outstanding effectiveness and efficiency and rated as overall excellent in their annual appraisal may be granted an additional merit annual increment(s).

2.3 EPF/SOCSO

1. 2.3.1 Employees Provident Fund (EPF): All staff are entitled to a monthly EPF contribution from ARROW and staff are required to contribute a percentage of their monthly salary towards EPF. The rates of the contributions are based on the current requirements and options of the EPF.
2. 2.3.2 Social Security (SOCSO): Staff drawing a monthly salary of less than RM2,000 are required by the Employees Social Security Act 1969 to contribute to SOCSO (which covers disabilities due to accidents when working) as per the scale set by SOCSO. ARROW as the employer will contribute towards the scheme as per the scale. Staff drawing a monthly salary of more than RM2,000 who wish to contribute to SOCSO may do so.

2.4 WORKING HOURS/OVERTIME

1. 2.4.1 The number of working hours in a normal working day is 7.5 hours excluding lunch hour with work scheduled between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. for five days per week.
2. 2.4.2 Staff may request time off for one to two hours for urgent personal business once every fortnight. This is to be recorded by the supervisor and the hours made up within a month.
3. 2.4.3 Staff will be allowed time off for breast-feeding as per ILO guidelines.
4. 2.4.4 Staff drawing a salary not exceeding RM1,500 are eligible for overtime at the rate1 which complies with the Employment Act and is as stated in ARROW's Financial Procedures. Hours worked in excess of 37.5 hours per week and which are claimed as overtime require approval in advance from the supervisor.

2.5 LEAVE

2.5.1 Annual Leave

1. a) Staff shall be entitled to 24 days of annual leave on the basis of two days of earned leave per month. Accruals begin at the start of the probation period.
2. b) Under normal circumstances, annual leave of one to two days is to be applied at least one week before the date of the leave. Leave of longer duration needs to be submitted two weeks before and be endorsed by the Supervisor and Executive Director. Other leave will have to have approval from the Supervisor or be at the discretion of the Executive Director.
3. c) Annual leave may not be granted at times by the Supervisor or Executive Director due to operational requirements. The reason for this decision will be noted in the leave form.
4. d) Staff are encouraged to complete their annual leave within the calendar year. Any request to carry forward annual leave requires approval from the Executive Director, and in the case of the Executive Director, the approval is from the Board.

2.5.2 Sick Leave

1. a) Staff are entitled to 18 days sick leave per year where no hospitalisation is necessary; however, a certificate from a registered medical or dental practitioner to verify this is required.
2. b) Time-off for urgent medical or dental appointments during office hours is to be deducted from the 18 days sick leave (with certificate) in Para. 2.5.2 (a).
3. c) 60 days in each calendar year are permitted for hospitalisation. This 60 days includes the 18 days of sick leave in Para. 2.5.2 (a). If a staff is certified by a registered medical practitioner to be ill enough and needs to be hospitalised, but wishes to stay at home for any reason, the staff shall be deemed to be hospitalised, and entitled to the 60 days.
4. d) Any staff suffering from serious illness requiring prolonged absence from work will be granted on the basis of a registered medical practitioner's recommendation, in addition to sick leave in Para. 2.5.2 (c) above, a maximum of 90 working days with pay within a year.

1. 2.5.3 Leave-in-Lieu
   When it is approved for a staff to work on a Saturday or Sunday, or a public holiday, for purposes of attending meetings, seminars or other ARROW activities, or travelling to/from overseas meetings, a day off in lieu may be requested and should be applied for within 2 months of the event date. Prior approval will be needed from the immediate Supervisor or the Executive Director on the number of days off in lieu based on the required hours to attend the activities or travelling time.

2.5.4 Family Leave

1. a) Maternity Leave
   • A female staff will be entitled to 90 days of maternity leave at the ordinary rate of pay provided that she has been employed by ARROW for a minimum period of 90 days in the aggregate during the nine months immediately preceding her confinement.
   • Maternity leave may only commence on or after the 28^th week of pregnancy and leave of absence from work due to any illness or miscarriage during the first 28^th weeks shall be considered as normal sick leave as provided under Para. 2.5.2 (a).
   • Staff concerned are required to inform the organisation early as to the estimated due date of the birth.
2. b) Paternity leave
   • Three days leave for a male staff whose wife gives birth will be granted.
3. c) Parental leave
   • Six days leave taken from the 18 days of sick leave entitlement may be made available to care for sick children or parents. A medical certificate/authorisation letter will be given to the immediate supervisor to verify this.
   • 30 days leave will be granted when a child is newly adopted by a staff.
4. d) Compassionate leave
   • Three days paid leave in the event of death of a member of the staff's immediate family; specifically the spouse, partner, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and parents-in-law.
5. e) Emergency leave
   • Two days paid leave when fire, flood, earthquake, landslide civil disorder, a strike, or a crime endangering the life or property of the staff or their immediate family.

1. 2.5.5 Long-Service Leave
   15 days leave after five years of service, planned for normally 3 months in advance and awarded for rejuvenation purposes in recognition of loyalty and long services to the organisation.

2.6 PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

1. 2.6.1 Staff will be entitled to all public holidays enjoyed in Wilayah Persekutuan.
2. 2.6.2 If a public holiday falls on a Sunday, Monday will become a leave day.
3. 2.6.3 Staff will be given a half-day leave immediately before one main public holiday of their respective religious holiday or festivals.

2.7 MEDICAL CHECK-UP AND HEALTH BENEFITS

1. 2.7.1 All staff are to undergo a pre-employment medical check-up as required by baseline information on their health. The medical checkup should normally be done and the report given before the letter of appointment is issued.
2. 2.7.2 Staff are entitled to a “Well-being Allowance” of a flat rate of RM500.00 per staff per year which will be given to the staff in payments of RM250.00 every six months. This is intended to cover any expense related to health, medical, dental, alternative treatments, vitamins, exercise, etc. which the person considers are necessary for their health and wellbeing both preventive and for actual treatment. (Note: Subject to evaluation at the end of 2003, an amount of RM41.66 is included in the staff monthly salary.)
3. 2.7.3 Staff will be covered under the Personal Accident and Hospitalisation Insurance scheme immediately as soon as they come into ARROW.

2.8 TRAVELLING ALLOWANCES

1. 2.8.1 Mileage claim: A staff who is required to use her own vehicle/car for carrying out ARROW's work is entitled to be reimbursed as per ARROW's Financial Guidelines.
2. 2.8.2 Passport/Visa applications: Where and when it is work-related, ARROW will cover all costs for new and renewal of passports, and visa applications.
3. 2.8.3 Per Diem: A staff who is required to work outstation beyond 100km from office or overseas, and is not provided with accommodation and allowance by other parties is entitled to a per diem rate based on ARROW's Financial Guidelines.
4. 2.8.4 Travel Insurance: Travel insurance for official overseas travel will be provided for all staff when travelling for ARROW activities.

2.9 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

1. 2.9.1 The appraisal involves the self-appraisal of the staff and the appraisal by the Supervisor using the standard ARROW Appraisal Form according to ARROW's Performance Appraisal Procedures.
2. 2.9.2 Both the staff concerned and supervisor are to sign the form; a copy is to be given to the staff and the original to be kept confidentially.
3. 2.9.3 Performance appraisal will take place during probation, annually and at other times when considered necessary by the Supervisor and the Executive Director.

2.10 DISCIPLINARY ACTION

1. 2.10.1 Misconduct, inefficiency and indiscipline will be dealt with first in a performance appraisal structure (review, documentation, and discussion) in which the staff will have the opportunity to speak in their defence. If this process is considered to be insufficient, depending on the nature of the behaviour, a disciplinary action shall consist of:

1. (i) a letter, documented in the confidential personal file,
2. (ii) deferment of one annual increment (for a short period or up to one year),
3. (iii) suspension without pay up to seven days, or
4. (iv) dismissal.

1. 2.10.2 Action (ii), (iii) and (iv) require recommendations from the Supervisor and Executive Director endorsed by the Board in a Board of Directors' meeting including a “hearing” for the staff concerned. A person of staff choice from outside of ARROW may be present during the hearing.
2. 2.10.3 The staff has the right to initiate a grievance as outlined in Para. 2.11 provided that any action taken under Para 2.10.1 shall stand while the appeal is being processed.

2.11 GRIEVANCE

1. 2.11.1 A grievance is a complaint by a staff, which is brought to the attention of the immediate supervisor but subsequently not settled to the satisfaction of the staff. In this case, the staff can approach their manager or the Executive Director, who will review the complaint and act as arbitrator.
2. 2.11.2 If the grievance is to the Executive Director herself, which is brought to her attention but subsequently not settled to the satisfaction of the staff, the staff may approach the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors may meet to listen to a presentation of the grievance and document the efforts of problem resolution.

2.12 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT OF SERVICES (EMPLOYMENT)

2.12.1 In addition to any other ground or grounds for termination that ARROW may have in law, the contract of service:

1. (a) can be terminated by ARROW on the following grounds:
   1. (i) Serious misconduct: In cases of serious misconduct which includes acts of a criminal nature, e.g. fraud, forgery, assault, criminal breach of trust, theft, etc., as well as gross subordination, the management can terminate the services of the staff if after due inquiry and all steps in Para. 2.10 has been completed,
   2. (ii) Redundancy or closure of the organisation: As a result of redundancy arising from reorganisation or scaling down of operation, or due to closure of the organisation, services of the staff may be terminated.
   3. (iii) Poor performance: When the staff's performance is not at an acceptable level, and if despite corrective steps having been taken by Management, the performance does not reach an acceptable level, such staff's services may be terminated.
2. (B) shall terminate upon:
   1. (i) Retirement: A staff's services will be terminated when she reaches the retirement age as per Para. 2.15.1.
   2. (ii) Expiry of Fixed-Term Contract: A staff with a fixed-term contract, i.e. a staff employed for a specified period based on the funding cycle, will be terminated when the contract expires, with notice given to the staff according to the required time stated in the contract,
   3. (iii) Frustration of contract: A staff contract of employment with ARROW is “frustrated” when the staff becomes unable to perform the work which she was employed for on account of reasons beyond her control such as serious and prolonged illness; incapable of doing her work as a result of an accident; or detention of the staff by authorities for a lengthy period of time.
3. (C) can be terminated by the employee by way of resignation with notice given according to Para. 2.13.1. Recommendation of termination must be informed to and agreed by the Board of Directors for all of the above except fixed term contracts and resignation.

2.13 RESIGNATION

1. 2.13.1 A staff has the right to resign from her employment with ARROW. A written notice of at least three (3) calendar months is required for the Executive Director and two (2) calendar months is required for the Managers. A notice of one (1) calendar month is required for other staff. Before leaving the organisation and receiving the final salary, the staff is required to return to ARROW any money owing and all property belonging to ARROW in the staff's possession, custody or control.

2.14 RETRENCHMENT BENEFITS

1. 2.14.1 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:
   1. (i) 10 days' wages for each year of service if employed less than two (2) years;
   2. (ii) 15 days' wages for each year of service if employed for two (2) or more but less than five (5) years; or
   3. iii) 20 days' wages for each year of service if employed for five (5) years or more. An incomplete year shall be calculated to the nearest month on a prorated basis.

2.15 RETIREMENT AGE

1. 2.15.1 Subject to review and discretion of the Executive Director and the Board of Directors, the normal retirement age of the full-time staff in ARROW is when they reach sixty (60) years of age.

2.16 RIGHT TO VARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. 2.16.1 ARROW reserves the right to vary the terms and conditions of employment from time to time as is found to be necessary, such variation to be effective upon notification to staff. Whenever possible, this will be done after discussion and consultation with all staff.

ANNEXE 8 Sample Letter of Agreement between ARROW and a Partner

Date

Name of Partner

Contact details

Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the ASIAN-PACIFIC RESOURCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE FOR WOMEN (ARROW), and the Partner for strengthening ground support for ICPD Beyond 2014 processes through UN processes

1. Background

The next two years will mark the lead-up to the critical target date for the 20^th year review of the International Conference on Population &. Development (ICPD) Programme of Action (PoA).

In the lead-up to 2014 there are opportunities to ensure the voices from ground-up demonstrate the evidence and the advocacy that the SRHR agenda truly belongs to the women at the ground level.

Currently there is a High-Level Task Force on ICPD Beyond 2014 which advocates a strong re-commitment to the ICPD agenda and the UNFPA ICPD Beyond 2014 process also talks of country consultations, regional meetings and international conferences and UN meetings around the process. In September 2013, the key regional meeting of governments on the ICPD agenda will take place in Bangkok, convened by both UNESCAP and UNFPA.

This is an important meeting for advocacy in the region. This meeting the 6^th Asian and Pacific Population Conference (APPC) in mid-2013 will serve as the key regional inter-governmental meeting within the ICPD review process; and release the regional political commitment statement towards the ICPD agenda.

Hence it is critical in the lead-up to 2014, that the national advocacy and national voices around the ICPD agenda are heard and add strength and greater constituency to the ICPD agenda at regional and international levels. It is essential to bring the national advocates to lobby with their government representatives to push forward the SRHR agenda with their government representatives.

This proposed work ensures local and national ownership of the SRHR agenda through the following key strategies:

1. 1) utilising the ICPD Beyond 2014 processes to demonstrate the on-ground constituency of the agenda through national advocacy, national stakeholders and national needs;
2. 2) evidence-generation across countries and the creation on national level advocacy briefs on the status of SRHR, and clear ‘asks’; and
3. 3) national level advocacy dialogues to ensure policymakers are on-board with the agenda.

This proposed work will also address the urgent need to revitalise the role of national level NGOs and movements as key drivers for the SRHR agenda within the ICPD review processes:

1. 1) as development partners;
2. 2) to monitor and hold governments accountable to their national and international commitments;
3. 3) to continue advocating for issues which are new and innovative (such as sexuality rights) as well as those which are necessary but perceived as contentious (culture/country specific gender inequality issues such as child marriage; access to comprehensive sex and sexuality education and access to safe abortion services) in order to help improve SRHR outcomes; and
4. 4) to demonstrate clearly that the SRHR agenda is a bottom-up agenda and not one that is imposed by donor countries.

The key countries being proposed for this work are:

• In Southeast Asia: Cambodia, Lao PDR, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines
• In East Asia: China
• In South Asia: Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and the Maldives

2. National Level Project Work (Bangladesh)

For Bangladesh, the partner will focus to maintain and improve the maternal death record documentation in the lowest tier of governmental union-so called Parishads- in the selected locality of south-west coastal belt of Bangladesh. The effort was aim to further escalate the issues of maternal health documentation trough audit in the ground to the key stakeholder especially public government, so that key policies and programme able to gauge the issues.

National Advocacy Plan for (Partner):

Number	Activity	Timeline	Responsibility	Budget
1	Half day orientation workshops on registration of maternal deaths and maintenance of maternal death records (36). 1.1 Participants: Chairman, Members, Secretary and Chowkidar of 36 Union Parishads under 5 upazilas of Barguna district in the southwest coastal belt of Bangladesh. 1.1 Participants: Barguna District Civil Surgeon, Deputy Director Family Planning and from 5 Upazilas Family Planning Officer, Statistician and Family Planning Inspector.	June-August 2013	Partner and CBO Supported by CBO	× ×
2.	1.1 Upazila-level press conferences (5)	September	Partner and 5 CBO partners	×
3.	Meetings with key policy makers to lobby for adoption of improved system of registration and record keeping	September	Partner	×
4.	Administration and Human Resources	June-September	Partner	×
Total in Bangladeshi Takas				×

Key outputs include:

• 50% Union Parishads under the purview of this intervention are registering and recording maternal deaths accurately and in adherence to standards.
• Local-level elected public representatives are active in monitoring the functioning of chowkidars.
• National level policy makers are made aware of the lapses in the current system of death registration and record keeping and adopt remedial measures.

3. Obligations

Both parties agree to make their best efforts in the spirit of partnership and cooperation to carry out project activities as mentioned above in the LOA. Changes regarding the activities and schedule shall be made only after dialogue with ARROW.

OBLIGATIONS OF ARROW

• ARROW will provide technical assistance to the extent that this is possible, and in accordance with the activities stipulated by the national advocacy plan.
• ARROW is responsible for regular communication on the information pertaining to the regional advocacy events, and timely transfer of funds on the basis of the budget and work-plan and based on the receipt and approval of reports, activity and budget plans, and requests for transfer.

OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTNER

• As project partner of ARROW, the partner holds the primary responsibility for the implementation of the activities at the local and national level and to notify ARROW of any changes or delays in the activities.
• {Partner) is responsible for ensuring the funds are handled in accordance to the LOA and that the funds are being used for the activities only according to the approved budget.

4. The Grant and Transfer of Funds

An allocation of USDx has been allocated for listed activities outlined for The Partner from June 2013 — September 2013. The transfer of funds will be made after receipt by ARROW of the following:

• The enclosed countersigned copy of this LOA, and
• A completed copy of the attached Transfer Request Form.

This grant is made only for the purposes stated in LOA. It is understood that these grant funds will be used for such purposes substantially in accordance with the attached approved budget. It is also understood that no substantial variances will be made from the budget without ARROW's prior approval in writing. Any grant funds not expended or committed for the purposes of the grant, or within the period stated above, will be returned to ARROW.

5. Reporting

The Partner will be responsible for reporting of the national advocacy activities, and will submit the below mentioned reports to ARROW. ARROW must receive the following reports from the Partner regarding the project:

• Narrative report: A narrative account of what was accomplished by the expenditure of funds, including a description of progress made towards achieving the goals of the grant.
• Financial report: The financial report must be submitted to ARROW. A financial reporting, in local currency and US dollars, according to the line-item category of the approved budget, which includes a statement by the responsible financial officer of your organisation certifying the accuracy of the report. The financial report is to be sent to ARROW on 30 September, 2013 along with all receipts (original/hard copies).

6. Anti-Corruption Clause

All partners entering agreements with ARROW will need to abide by ARROW's anti-corruption policy. Please find it here: http://www.arrow.org.my/?p=arrows-anti-corruption-policy

7. Dispute

Should any dispute arise to the implementation, orientation or any other aspect of this Agreement, the parties shall make all efforts to reach an amicable solution, with the aim of solving these disputes between the parties in a friendly manner, through dialogue. In case we cannot solve a dispute, an external independent mediator should be appointed in order to seek a mutually satisfactory solution. Should this not be possible, such dispute shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts of Malaysia.

8. Agreement Conditions

This Agreement shall enter into force as soon as both parties The Partner and ARROW have signed the present agreement, and the Agreement shall remain in force until the termination of the project, and until ARROW have approved the final reports and final audited accounts. The Agreement can only be changed by mutual agreement.

If this LOA is accepted by you, please indicate your organisation's agreement to such terms by having the enclosed copy of this letter countersigned and returning the letter to ARROW in Kuala Lumpur, and keeping a copy for yourself. Communication regarding administrative arrangement for this fund should be directed to (Name of ARROW staff) via e-mail at (___).

Thank you.

With best wishes,

 

(Name)
Executive Director, ARROW

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:
The Partner

By: ....................................................................................................

(Name)

...........................................................................................................

(Signature)

...........................................................................................................

(Position)

...........................................................................................................

(Date)

ANNEXE 9 WHRAP-South Asia Steering Committee Terms of Reference

Introduction

The WHRAP-SA Steering Committee (SC) is the decision-making body of WHRAP-SA. It consists of the Executive Director/Coordinator/focal decision making person of the WHRAP-SA national NGO partners and ARROW, and a focal person from DFPA.

Aims

The WHRAP-SA SC will:

1. Strive to make WHRAP-SA an effective advocacy partnership;
2. Reflect collectively to learn from experiences of the partners; and
3. Facilitate greater coordination between the national WHRAP-SA partners, ARROW and DFPA.

Roles and Responsibilities

With reference to achieving the mission of WHRAP-SA, the SC shall:

ADVOCACY

• Set the strategic direction of the WHRAP-SA advocacy and partnership decide on strategies for engaging with other key actors and institutions related to the WHRAP advocacy agenda.
• Keep track of the advocacy agenda and opportunities.

LEARNING

• Review and assess the effectiveness of WHRAP-SA's advocacy and partnership strategies and implement adaptations accordingly.
• Ensure continuous reflection and collective learning from the field experiences of the partners.

GOVERNANCE

• Monitor fulfilment of the objectives¹ and mission.²
• Review the effectiveness of the M&E system.
• Monitor the compliance to the principles of the partnership.³
• Propose mechanisms for resolving partnership issues.

MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

• ARROW will be the Secretariat to the SC and ensure that the decisions taken are communicated promptly and implemented.
• The bi-annual meetings of the SC will be decided/announced at the beginning of the year.
• The SC can also invite members from the working groups and/or external resource persons to participate in SC meetings.
• The SC will develop criteria for the expansion of the SC membership.
• It is critically important for the SC members to attend the scheduled bi-annual meetings; in exceptional circumstances, should an SC member not be able to participate in a particular meeting, the member can pre-nominate an alternate senior representative or board member from the organisation to substitute her.
• The SC will utilise a standard meeting agenda, as developed in the SC meetings of April and October 2010.⁴

Annex 1 — Terms of Engagement of WHRAP-South Asia

WHRAP is based on a commitment towards the health rights of poor and marginalised women and girls (within the overarching framework of human rights, SRHR and gender equality), creating a comprehensive model to bring about positive change across local, national, and global arenas.

WHRAP signifies commitment to the following principles:

1. Inclusive, informed and participatory decisionmaking however where there is lack of consensus, majority decision will prevail;
2. Accountability within the partnership;
3. Transparency between and amongst partners in the areas of decision-making, finance and programme content;
4. Regular and open communication of work, resources, challenges, and plans;
5. Recognition, appreciation and acknowledgement of each others' ideas, efforts, contributions, and the diversity of national and local contexts;
6. Partnership development that is based on critical feedback;
7. Development of new leadership through mentoring, nurturing and creating of opportunities; and
8. Learning from successes, challenges as well as failure, through a process of review and reflection.

Annex 2 — Standard SC Meeting Agenda format

Date: Proposed Chair: ≪each half day session to have assigned chair persons to facilitate meeting≫		Reference documents
1. Welcome	≪Time for each agenda item≫
2. Comments to Agenda
3. Minutes of last meeting & matters arising
Learning from reflection of implementation
4. SC to ensure continuous reflection and collective learning from the field experiences of the partners through sharing of information from recent activities/updates from all WHRAP partners with a special focus on outcomes of advocacy activities and any follow up actions for WHRAP-SA: □ Sharing on national level activities and developments by partners □ Sharing of information from relevant regional & international events that WHRAP-SA has been a part of. □ Any other events that partners want to report on.
Advocacy
5. WHRAP-SA advocacy related agenda items □ SC to set the strategic direction of the WHRAP-SA advocacy and partnership □ SC to decide and review strategies for engaging with other key actors and institutions related to the WHRAP advocacy agenda □ SC to keep track of the advocacy agenda and opportunities
Monitoring & Evaluation
6. WHRAP-SA M&E related agenda items □ SC to review and assess the effectiveness of WHRAP-SA's advocacy and partnership strategies and implement adaptations accordingly □ SC to review the effectiveness of the M&E system
Capacity building
7. WHRAP-SA capacity building related agenda items □ SC to set, approve and review the implementation of the capacity building plan for WHRAP-SA
Governance
8. WHRAP-SA governance related agenda items □ SC to monitor fulfilment of the WHRAP-SA objectives and mission □ Monitor the compliance to the principles of the partnership □ Propose mechanisms for resolving partnership issues
9. Budget and finances □ SC to be informed about the regional budget allocations and expansion as per approved work plans
10. Evaluation of the meeting □ SC to evaluate effectiveness of their meetings and processes
11. Any other business □ SC to discuss any other matters in relation to WHRAP-SA
12. Next meeting □ SC to decide the dates and venues of their meetings at the first meeting of the year.
Meeting closes

Amended based on SC meeting minutes of October 2010, April 2011, September 2011 and December 2011.

ANNEXE 10 ARROW for Change Editorial Team Guidelines¹

Following are the guidelines for the function of the Editorial Team that includes the guidelines for the engagement of External Reader in the review of the ARROW for Change or AFC. This is part of a larger document on bulletin guidelines and policies, titled, ARROW for Change Guidelines and Policies.

1. The Editorial Team

The Editorial Team is composed of the Executive Director (ED), the Programme Manager for Information and Communications (Infocom PM), the AFC Programme Officer (AFC PO)/AFC Managing Editor (see no. 2 for details on the roles of AFC PO), selected members of the programme team that have expertise on the issue (if any), and a guest editor or guest issue coordinator (if any).²

The Editorial Team is expected to ensure that the conceptualisation of the bulletin theme is appropriate and that appropriate contributors are identified and produce quality outputs; ensure that overall conceptualisation and development of the bulletin runs smoothly and that timely decisions are taken to produce a high quality output; and is responsible for troubleshooting and making final decisions to problems faced.

In particular, the Infocom PM is expected to:

• Supervise and provide support to the AFC Programme Officer, including monitoring of the bulletin work plan's schedule and managing the production processes;
• Give guidance and feedback to the AFC PO on bulletin theme suggestions;
• Give feedback and suggestions on the concept note developed by the AFC PO, including on articles to be featured and possible authors and reviewers, including attending the brainstorming meeting;
• Take part in Editorial meetings with the AFC PO and suggest ways to resolve any problem faced and consult the Executive Director if necessary;
• Provide feedback on the articles for the AFC PO's consolidation;
• Approve the text of the bulletin sections before the first layout; and,
• Carry out a second round of checks on the bulletin layout before it goes to the printers.³

The Executive Director is expected to:

• Provide strategic and operational guidance to the Infocom PM and AFC PO;
• Give final approval to the AFC proposed themes;
• Offer troubleshooting suggestions if and when consulted by the Programme Manager;
• Give feedback and suggestions on the concept note developed by the AFC PO, including on articles to be featured and possible authors and reviewers; and,
• Give final approval on the bulletin before printing.

Additional programme team members who have specific expertise on the bulletin theme may also be asked to join the Editorial Team of a specific issue, wherein their roles may include providing comments on the concept note and reviewing specific articles.

All programme staff also contribute to producing the AFC issue in various ways, including providing input at the AFC Concept Note Brainstorming Meeting, where the concept note of a specific AFC issue is presented for comment to programme staff, and writing the annotations for the AFC Resources section.

The roles of the AFC Managing Editor and of Issue or Guest Editors are explained in more detail below.

2. AFC Managing Editor

This role is performed by the AFC Programme Officer. The AFC Managing Editor has several roles and responsibilities:

Overall

• Implementing the bulletin work plan and overseeing all aspects of the different stages and sections of AFC publishing (conceptualisation, development, editorial and production)—including conceptualisation; getting writers, expert readers, designers, printer, and external consultants (as needed) onboard and coordinating and liaising with them; copyediting; design and artwork; and printing.
• Scheduling and keeping track of dates and bulletin processes vis-à-vis the work plan to enable the Editorial Team to accurately assess problems and trying to solve these with the advice of the Infocom PM and ED.3
• Keeping an eye on costs (trying to keep the publication within budget, anticipating whether editorial or design changes will increase costs and notifying the ED/Infocom PM and/or Finance Officer when the publication exceeds its budget);

Conceptualisation and Development:

• Conducting information searches and prepares a list of proposed themes for upcoming AFCs, in consultation with the programme staff and Infocom PM, and with the approval of the ED, which are then presented at the Programme Advisory Committee meeting.
• Conducting information searches in the ARROW SRHR Knowledge Sharing Centre (ASK-us!) and online, and conceptualising each AFC issue, drafting concept notes with a proposed list of contributors, with the help of ARROW programme staff and PAC members.
• Doing desk research/information searches and compiling/writing for the following sections of the AFC:
  1. Definitions
  2. Resources Section (the ASK-us team provides support in finding appropriate materials; also there are times when other staff annotate some resources
  3. Fact file (other programme officers also contribute for this section; if there is budget, this can also be outsourced)
• Getting writers and external expert readers on board, and coordinating and liaising with them regarding submission of articles and/or comments.

Editorial:

• Serving as a fact checker, although the expert external readers may also point this out.
• Copyediting the articles (ranges from light copyediting—checking for errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, usage, and style—to heavy/substantive copyediting).
• Compiling comments from the expert external readers and the ARROW Editorial Team (i.e., Executive Director, Programme Manager, and AFC PO) and communicating these to the contributors for rewriting. On occasion, the AFC PO may incorporate the changes herself (cleanup editing) and send the revised articles to the writers for approval. (In case of disagreement over the changes, the ARROW Editorial Team may exercise its right as bulletin publisher to make the final decision, including whether to proceed with publishing the articles.)

Production:

• Hiring and liaising with the designer/layout artist, providing him/her with the necessary graphics and final text, proofreading (checking for typographical and mechanical errors in the laid-out publication) and going over the layout before it goes to the printer; getting bids from printers; liaising with the chosen printer regarding printing quality and delivery; proofreading and approving the printer proofs.

Monitoring and evaluation:

• Designing a system for receiving feedback, editorial review, and overall evaluation of the bulletin, together with the Infocom PM.

Editorial guidelines:

• Reviewing and updating the AFC Editorial Guidelines as necessary, drafting the paper and presenting this to the Programme Advisory Committee and Board for feedback.

3. Guest Editor

This refers to consultants hired to develop the AFC concept note and write the editorial. This modality is used in cases where external expertise is particularly needed. The Guest Editor is expected to introduce ARROW to the authors, but the rest of the coordination and editorial work are taken on by the AFC Managing Editor. The Guest Editor may also, at their own preference, choose to review articles.

4. Issue Coordinator

This was the term used prior to the usage of Managing Editor, and the current term used when consultants are hired to produce an AFC issue (this modality is used in cases where there is significant backlog in production and the schedule needs to be brought up to speed, or when there are human resource issues). The amount of work varies, and may include writing of concept notes, contributing a major article and other minor AFC sections, liaising with writers, and light copyediting.

The Managing Editor/AFC PO and/or the Infocom Programme Manager is/are still expected to supervise the Issue Coordinator's tasks and the quality and timeliness of outputs. The staff and the Programme Advisory Committee still review the concept note, while expert readers still review the articles.

5. Programme Advisory Committee (PAC)

The PAC plays a critical role in the development of the AFC bulletin and in ensuring that it remains a cutting-edge and practical-oriented tool most useful to its Asian-Pacific readers. Currently, PAC roles and responsibilities with regards to the AFC are as follows:

• Providing feedback and giving recommendations on the themes AFC will feature;
• Providing input on the AFC concept paper, particularly on the politics of the issue, useful resources on the theme, and people/organisations to approach for article contributions and to serve as expert external readers;
• Serving as an AFC resource pool, acting as expert external reader or contributing articles when relevant; and
• Providing guidance on AFC editorial policy matters.

Aside from the yearly PAC meeting in April, the AFC PO consults the PAC through email.

6. Expert External Readers⁴

ARROW invites expert external readers based on their considerably long professional involvement and expertise on the theme and on their having a clear understanding of women's and gender perspectives. They can be Programme Advisory Committee members and ARROW friends, recommended by programme staff or PAC members, or known experts in the field who surface as part of the mapping during preparation of the concept note. They should preferably be working in or have expertise in Asia or the Pacific. Expert external readers' review one to three articles each, depending on their availability. Review of articles is pro bono.

The expert external readers provide feedback on articles along these categories:

• Political perspective: The expert external readers are mainly responsible for ensuring that the articles promote women's, gender and rights-based perspectives, and that the viewpoints forwarded are progressive and contribute towards the overall advancement of discussions on the theme and are expressed using appropriate and sensitive language.
• Content: Expert external readers will be mainly responsible for providing suggestions to improve the content quality of at least two of four AFC articles (a combination of the Editorial, the Spotlight Articles, and the Fact File). Suggestions should contribute to fully fleshing out the chosen AFC theme, highlighting important issues, and strengthening the article and the bulletin's overall content. Suggestions should be as concrete and as specific as possible (e.g., telling the author and the ARROW editorial team which section's content needs improvement and the ways to do so, including pointing to specific resources which could be used). When making the editorial comments, expert readers should also bear in mind ARROW's strict limitations in article length (Editorial: 1,200 words; Spotlight Articles: between 700–1,300 words; Fact file: 600 words (plus table); Endnotes are included in the article length).
• Readability: Since ARROW's target groups and readers consist of different levels of exposure to concepts and innovations in the field of promoting “gender-sensitive,” “women-centred” and rights-based perspectives, as well as on the theme of the bulletin, the language used in the articles should be as simple as possible and easily understandable. The article should also flow logically and coherently. As such, expert external readers are asked to provide suggestions on making the article more accessible, functional, and appropriate for AFC's target audience.
• Accuracy and currency of facts: Expert external readers are welcome to help spot such inaccuracies and provide alternative and more recent sources.

External expert readers may also be asked to provide input on the concept paper. This is purely depending on the interest/willingness of the expert external readers.

Expert external readers are not responsible for actual rewriting of articles or for copyediting (checking for errors in grammar, spelling, usage, and style). Nor will they be asked to assist with the design and layout of the bulletin, or with the proof reading (checking for typographical and mechanical errors in the laidout publication). The AFC Managing Editor/PO is responsible for these tasks.

The expert external readers work closely and communicate with the AFC Managing Editor/PO. The latter is responsible for communicating the readers' recommendations to the writer.

7. Designer/Layout artist⁵

Design, layout and production co-ordination are performed either by the Publications Officer or by an external consultant whose tasks are as follows:

• Laying out the publication;
• Ensuring that the quality of the graphics and images meets print standards, sometimes also sourcing photos or developing graphics as needed;
• Making the necessary revisions, doing it at the ARROW office if necessary and at the request of the ARROW coordinating staff (maximum of 4 times);
• Creating ready-to-print files and submitting these both to ARROW and to the printer.
• Creating an e-copy (pdf) of the whole book and an e-copy (jpeg) of the cover for uploading to ARROW's website.
• S/he may also be expected to liaise with the printers to ensure the best quality output possible within the budget.

ANNEXE 11 ARROW Human Resource Development Policy

Introduction

The Human Resource Development Policy was approved by the Board of Directors in May 2002 in recognition that the provision of high quality programmes contribute to the competent performance of all staff. The principles, application and limitations are included in the document Human Resource Development Policy.

4.1.1 PRINCIPLES

1. (i) ARROW recognises that the provision of high quality programmes contributes to the competent performance of all staff. Continuing higher education, lectures, workshops, seminars, field visits, exposure trips etc. are means by which ARROW staff gain/update their knowledge and skills in order to maintain and improve performance.
2. (ii) ARROW's objectives will be best met in an environment which encourages individual staff to realise their full potential both in their current positions and in preparation for future roles.
3. (iii) Staff are encouraged to undertake any necessary and mutually beneficial educational courses both at a higher level and in specialised areas where such qualification and knowledge is required for the efficient performance of their present duties or for their progress along a recognised career path and for ARROW's work.
4. (iv) Where a minimum standard of education is stipulated for admission to a specific course, staff must have reached that level before ARROW will contemplate approval of a course of study for examination leave purposes. ARROW support will only be available for attendance at programmes and courses assessed as being presented by appropriately accredited providers.

4.1.2 APPLICATION

Human Resource Development is defined as any education, training or development activity undertaken under the auspices of ARROW, with the objective of contributing to the improvement of knowledge and skills and the ultimate performance of the staff. Needs in this area can be identified or can become apparent through a range of mechanisms. These include:

• strategic planning outcomes
• performance management and appraisal
• work performance indicators
• observation
• performance related disciplinary procedures
• organisational change and development
• introduction of new technology
• development of new services and programme areas
• changing professional standards or methodologies
• formal needs assessment processes

(i) Development options

It is important that the response to needs identified through all or any of the mechanisms outlined above is appropriate.

It should not be automatically assumed that training is the key to development. While the provision of skills training is an important element in some of these areas, it is an inappropriate and often unfruitful response where personal or professional development or the furtherance of tertiary qualification is most appropriate to sustain medium or long term change.

Additionally, in areas of, for example, poor performance, a purely training response may only serve to treat the symptom rather than the underlying condition which ultimately reappears. A considered and appropriate response is therefore essential. Listed below are some development related opportunities which ARROW can provide, do not entail cost or training per se and are also regarded as human resource development activities in ARROW.

• job rotation
• project work
• temporary assignments
• higher duties
• representational roles, e.g. in meeting and conferences
• participation in working groups
• committee or team work
• coaching
• job placement in another organisation
• mentoring
• constructive feedback
• close supervision (clinical or managerial)
• work redesign
• job sharing
• working with/contributing to professional groups
• exposure trips and exchange visits
• paper writing and presentation
• conference/workshop participation
• country visits

All options should be considered when determining the appropriate response to development needs identified.

(ii) Responsibility

Responsibility in this area is shared between the organisation, managers and employees and each has an important role. ARROW will have in place appropriate policy and support mechanisms which encourage and assist employees at all levels to continually develop their skills, understanding and knowledge.

ARROW

Through a range of mechanisms, ARROW, will continually review and assess human resource development needs across the organisation.

From time to time ARROW may require staff to participate in external courses, lectures, workshops, seminars and other events to:

• assist them in their personal and professional development
• to enable them to achieve greater proficiency in their present position or to prepare them for positions of increased responsibility
• keep them up to date in specialised areas of knowledge
• promote ARROW's standing in the field of women's health.

Where it is considered preferable or if external programmes do not adequately fulfil ARROW's requirements, training and development programmes may be devised and conducted within ARROW and selected employees may be invited to participate.

Executive Director, Programme and Administrative Managers

The ARROW Management Team is responsible for the provision of training and development opportunities for staff within their area, based on needs identified by the individual and the overall programme or administrative needs.

Therefore, the Executive Director, in consultation with middle managers should ensure that they:

1. (a) identify the individual and group needs of their staff
2. (b) determine appropriate interventions to equip staff with skills and knowledge that will:
   • improve performance, efficiency, effectiveness and specific skill levels
   • develop a commitment to the organisation by providing stimulating learning opportunities for personal growth and positive change
   • provide a skills base for ARROW which will allow it to adequately meet staffing needs in the short, medium and long term.
3. (c) Provide, as far as practicable, reasonable resources for staff in the form of time, learning materials and the opportunity for practical application of learned skills (subject to prescribed limits as detailed in agreements or other policies).
4. (d) Encourage and motivate staff to participate in activities which will assist them in meeting their potential.

Individual Employees:

Individual staff members are expected to accept a high degree of responsibility for their own education and development through:

• assisting to identify areas of need required to fulfil their job roles
• assisting in the formulation of a personal development plan
• taking an active part in relevant internal and external education and other activities
• applying skills and knowledge to the job situation
• seeking opportunities for skill and professional development

(iii) Higher Level Courses (i.e., resulting in a certificate, Diploma, etc.):

1. (a) Approval: Staff seeking approval and support from ARROW to undertake an approved higher level course for the purpose of being eligible for any study and/or examination leave and other support contained in the provisions of this Policy must apply to the Executive Director with the support of their line Manager on an annual basis. Support given may be in the form of paid leave for study and/or examinations. Such application should be made as early as possible so that funds can be raised or budgeted for replacement staff, at least six months before the course starts. Course expenses will be borne by staff. The request should include:

• the proposed course and institution
• duration, year being attempted, existing course credits and expected completion of the course
• whether attendance at lectures/tutorials will require leave of absence from work
• the requirement for attendance at any residential schools or field experience.
• the mode of assessment, i.e. by examination, assignment, etc.
• relevance to their current position or career path within ARROW.

Approval will normally be granted subject to:

• the suitability of the course as determined by ARROW vis-à-vis the applicant's current appointment or likely career path within ARROW
• consideration of the number of employees already undertaking the same or similar programmes and any possible consequential effect on organisational performance as the result of course requirements.

• (b) Examination Leave: ARROW will grant a staff member undertaking an approved course of study; leave with pay to attend examinations. Leave will include the time of the examination and reasonable travelling time. Documentary evidence confirming the date and time of the examination must be provided to the Executive Director who will approve the paid leave. This leave will only apply to situations where there is the requirement for attendance at a place of examination.
• (c) Residential Schools: A staff member undertaking an approved distance education course may be granted special leave to attend compulsory residential schools prescribed in the course syllabus. This requirement must be stipulated when applying for approval of the course of study. If this is not the case, no guarantee can be given that leave will be available.
• (d) Field/Work Experience: Where work experience is a requirement of an approved course syllabus, a staff member who has approval to undertake such a course may be granted accrued annual leave or leave without pay for the prescribed period up to a maximum of 10 working days per academic year. This requirement must be stipulated when applying for approval of the course of study. If this is not the case, no guarantee can be given that leave will be available.
• (e) Study Leave: Where a course of study has been approved under the terms of this policy up to 4 hours per week (non-accumulative) paid special leave may be granted for attendance at lectures and tutorials when evidence is produced that they cannot be attended out of normal shift hours and where alternative rostering arrangements are not practicable. This leave will be subject to the following limitations:

• taking of leave will be subject to meeting of service needs, as determined by the Executive Director, which will take precedence
• a condition of this benefit will be that the staff member concerned agrees to make up such time off when requested to do so by Executive Director in light of service and workload demands.

This leave will normally only apply to full time staff. Access to leave for part-time staff will be at the discretion of the Executive Director and subject to the same conditions and limitations as above. At no time will special paid leave for a part-time staff member exceed the pro-rata equivalent to that available to full-time staff.

(iv) Short training courses, workshops and conference participation: Managers should consult with the Executive Director as to whether it is desirable that staff within their control should be encouraged to undertake short courses defined as five days or less, or whether there is a need to conduct a course of training within ARROW.

(a) Costs: Any costs associated with external short courses and the conduct of internal courses will be subject to the normal budget forecasting and constraints and will be borne by the programme or administrative areas in which the relevant staff are employed or raised through special fundraising efforts.

(b) Requests from Staff: Staff wishing to attend a short course or workshop etc. should consult with their Manager as appropriate in the first instance.

Leave: Special Leave: Paid for approved activity of this nature will normally be limited to 5 days per calendar year. Special Leave — unpaid, subject to organisational considerations can be negotiated.

Staff will be paid their normal total remuneration whilst at short courses etc. attended at their own request and approved by ARROW. No additional compensation will be paid for time spent travelling or attending courses outside a staff member's normal working hours.

Expenses: Where approval is given to attend a short course, consideration may be given to assistance with expenses incurred. This will be at the discretion of the Executive Director. It will normally be limited to the shared cost of expenses to a maximum of RM500 or RM1,000 per staff in any calendar year within the following considerations:

• support provided will form part of any Award entitlement where that exists
• other support will be limited to the benefit outlined above
• access to staff development funds is a benefit not an entitlement and will be subject to the availability of funding
• staff should not necessarily expect to utilise the maximum entitlement each year
• to provide greater access to important events, approval may be given for cumulative financial support equivalent to 2 years; however study leave will not be cumulative
• no access to this benefit will be approved outside of the above
• all requests for access to staff development funds must be made via the staff member's immediate supervisor to the Director or directly to the Director who will consult with the immediate supervisor.

When special funds need to be raised by the course applicant or ARROW, the Executive Director will determine which funding agencies are to be approached.

Records: Managers will maintain a register of study leave and any associated expenses paid by ARROW and taken by staff responsible to them to ensure that the limitations outlined in this policy are observed and that such leave/expense requests are not inadvertently supported when staff have exceeded this limitation.

(c) Direction to Attend: Where a staff member attends a short course or conference at the direction of ARROW.

Payment: The staff member will be paid their salary for the duration of the course or conference as if they had been on duty and receive a reasonable time allowance for travelling to and from the place where the course is conducted

Expenses:

Where the staff member has to live away from home to attend the course or conference:

• the actual registration fee charged text book and stationary charges, the fare involved in the mode of transport selected by ARROW and the actual receipted cost incurred for meals, accommodation and reasonable incidental expenses

Where the staff member does not need to live away from home to attend the course:

• the actual registration fees charged, text book and stationary charges, and travelling expenses by the method selected by ARROW

For the purposes of the above, ARROW may elect to pay in lieu of actual travelling expenses, a daily rate of travelling allowance.

(v) Long Training Courses

Long courses of two weeks or more may be undertaken if recommended by Managers, and if agreed on by the Executive Director on a case to case basis. Normally, such course could be requested or provided after a minimum of three to five years of service as an incentive. Long courses require an agreement to continue working for ARROW after the course ends.

4.1.3 LIMITATIONS

1. (i) This policy should be read in conjunction with ARROW's policy on leaves and other legal documents, appropriate Agreements or Contracts. In the event of any inconsistency, the Agreement or Contract shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
2. (ii) Financial support, including salary payments pursuant to this policy shall not be applicable where any other source of funding or support relating to course fees, training wages or salary subsidies, etc. are available to the staff member, e.g. traineeships, bursaries, and scholarships.
3. (iii) Support for part time staff will be limited to the equivalent to the proportion of their part time status vis-à-vis full time.
4. (iv) ARROW will not reimburse student union or other fees incurred by a staff member who undertakes an approved course of study.
5. (v) Where attendance at a conference or workshop is approved under the terms of this policy, ARROW will not be responsible for costs relating to attendance at associated social or optional events.
6. (vi) ARROW will not normally contribute to costs associated with the acquisition or maintenance of professional grading or affiliations.
7. (vii) Approval of a course of study for purposes of examination leave as contained in an Agreement or Contract does not infer approval for the extension of other benefits (e.g. 2.3.5) pursuant to this Policy unless expressly indicated (i.e. not automatic to continue for future years ....).
8. (viii) Staff who are still in the probationary period will normally not be considered for short or longer courses besides orientation.
9. (ix) Staff on fixed term contracts will be considered for short or long courses at the discretion of the Executive Director.
10. (x) An allocation for HRD time and expenses will be made in ARROW's Five-Year Work Programme and Budget and Annual Operational Budget. Staff will be allocated five days per year for HRD activities. This will be taken into account in the Budget.

Notes

1  Pg. 23, ARROW MAPP (April 2008 edition)

1  A job competency is defined as a set of underlying characteristics of an individual that is causally related to their effective or superior performance on the job. The definition of competencies developed by the consultants to ARROW sought to predict/assess a person's generic knowledge, motive, trait, self-image, or skill which is essential to performing a job, thus going beyond the usual, knowledge-based and academic aptitude used to gauge capacity for superior performance. Paraphrased from ARROW Competency Model for the Position of the Executive Director (2004)

1  Pg. 5, MAPP (2008 edition)

1  The process involves a series of steps that refer to tools are not included in this publication due to their volume and complexity. These include the ARROW SRHR Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool and the Mango's Financial Management Health Check tool. These tools are available upon request from ARROW.

2  This tool is based on the Marguerite Casey Foundation Organisational Capacity Assessment Tool used by the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) in Bangladesh.

1  Note that since this COE was developed, ARROW's vision, mission and long-term objectives have changed as follows:

ARROW's Vision: An equal, just and equitable world, where every woman enjoys her full sexual and reproductive rights. ARROW's Mission: To promote and defend women's rights and needs, particularly in the areas of health and sexuality, and to reaffirm their agency to claim these rights.

Long-term Objectives:

2  From the December 2007 Board meeting minutes: The BOD discussed who the COE applies to, with some Board members feeling that ARROW cannot impose its COE on those outside the organisation and should only apply to the staff and the BOD. It was agreed that a section called “How to use the Code of Ethics” be added to the front of the document in order to specify who the Code applies to and how it could be used i.e. recruitment of staff, contractors etc. This section will influence what we put under “Orientation, enforcement and violation”. It is these sections that are in discussion now, in December 2008.

3  The following values are from the ARROW Management Manual (2006) which in turn are mainly taken from the proceedings and discussions that were developed over the years at ARROW's various Board-Staff Retreats and special staff sessions in 2002 and 2003, pertaining to organisational values.

4  Discussion at sessions with staff

5  Ibid

6  Partly from sessions with the staff

7  Ibid

8  Ibid

1  The calculation of daily and hourly rates are based on the Malaysian Employment Act 1955 as amended by the Employment (Amendment) Act 1998.

1  The development objective of WHRAP is to contribute to an improved quality of life through improved SRHR for marginalised women in South Asia by strengthening civil society engagement to hold governments accountable to their SRHR commitments.

2  Mission statements: WHRAP strengthens partnerships and civil society alliances to advocate with diverse stakeholders for universal access to quality SRHR services; as well as for policies and programmes sensitive to the needs of women and girls. WHRAP promotes the voices and leadership of affected groups for demanding accountability from duty bearers. (from Final Evaluation and Planning Meeting held from 19–23 April, 2010 in Dhaka, Bangladesh)

3  Refer to Annex 1 in this document- Terms of Engagement of WHRAP-SA

4  Refer to Annex 2 in this document- Standard SC Meeting Agenda format

1  ARROW for Change (AFC) Editorial Roles: Addendum to the ARROWs for Change: Bulletin Policy, Procedures and Content Guidelines. This document was developed by Maria Melinda Ando, then AFC Programme Officer, and now Infocom Manager, in July 2008, and updated in July 2013 to reflect changes in policies and practice.

2  The ARROWs for Change: Bulletin Policy, Procedures and Content Guidelines does not specifically have a line stating that these are the members of the Editorial Team. However, whenever it outlines specific tasks of the members of the Editorial Team, only the ED, the Info Com PM, and the AFC PO are mentioned. The other POs, like the IDC PO, have specific roles to help produce the AFC but they are listed outside the Editorial Team.

3  Paraphrased from the “ARROW for Change: Bulletin Policy, Procedures and Content Guidelines.”

4  “ARROW for Change Guidelines and Terms of Reference for Expert External Readers.” First Edition 10 March 2007; Updated in July 2013

5  Based on the AFC Designer's Terms of Reference.