Thematic Evaluation of Save the Children Norway's Cooperation with Partners – Zimbabwe Case Study

Background
The Zimbabwe evaluation is one of the four country reviews on the impact of SCN’s cooperation with partners. It forms part of a broader study that aims to identify evidence of impact and lessons learnt that can inform the future partnership policy of SCN and SC International.

Purpose/objective  
The purpose of this evaluation was to provide an insight into SCN’s work with partners, build learning and ensure accountability, by studying the practices in Zimbabwe:

1. Providing evidence of impact of SC in Zimbabwe’s cooperation with partners.
2. Reviewing implementation and documenting good practices.
3. Providing recommendations for future partnership cooperation, both in SCN and SCI.
  
Methodology
This evaluation is based on preliminary discussions with SCN in Norway, and discussions within the evaluation team. A breakdown of all the partners by different categories was carried to ensure that the sample of partners to be visited was representative across the different categories. Interviews were based on a standardized protocol. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a sample of partner organizations including: 4 CSOs who had been partners of SCN (and are now partners of SC-Zimbabwe), 2 previous SCN NGO partners (now ended), 4 Central Government partners, 4 Regional Government partners, 1 University partner and 2 partners/former partners of SCUK. Key stakeholders (e.g. Norwegian Embassy, UNICEF) and the SC staff were also interviewed. Feedbacks on the preliminary findings have been taken to account. Interviews were also carried out (both before and after this visit) with key informants on approaches to partnership from SCI and SCUK, SCUS, SC Canada, SC Sweden and SC Denmark Head Offices.

Key findings
Both SCN staff and its partners in Zimbabwe have had a similar understanding of what partnership means: working towards common goals, with each partner bringing its specific contribution in a spirit of mutual respect. However, local partners tend to see SCN principally as a donor, whereas SCN emphasizes other aspects of partnership. The manner in which SCN staff treated partners was described as accompaniment: respectful and supportive. Partners generally feel that SCN’s systems and procedures have been relatively ‘light touch’ and reasonable. Partners appreciate SCN’s approach to proposals for not being too irksome or bureaucratic. However, the down side of this is that the proposal documents are short on problem analysis, an underlying theory of change, and indicators for changes. Also, the one year time frame for project funding was widely seen as too short. Another area of concern is that SCN has sometimes given the partner a total budget amount (e.g. $50,000) and then asked them to tailor their planned activities into the available funds.  There has generally been little discussion of how partnerships will end at the inception period, and nor is there much planning for institutional sustainability. In practice, what has happened is that partners have received a warning of 6-12 months and some planning for what will happen in the post partnership period to sustain project outputs.

Programme capacity building has been a success, but there is a need of more systematic focus on organizational capacity building, such as human resource management, governance, monitoring and evaluation and resource mobilization. 

Recommendations 
- Keep as much decision making authority and room for maneuver at country programme level as possible to enable more scope for negotiation with partners. 
- Retain a balanced portfolio, which loosely sets out areas of work, types of partners and geographic areas, but articulate the best approach more clearly.
- Retain the emphasis on government (local and regional) as well as NGOs. 
- The experience of supporting child led groups and meaningful child participation should be retained and strengthened. Work with child led groups can be through intermediary partners rather than by SCN staff directly.
- Partnerships should have a longer time frame than is currently the case, such as at least three years for non-emergency work, as far as resources permit. 
- Project proposals and subsequent activities should consider and strengthen the overall capacity of partners, not just focus on the child rights aspects of the project to be implemented. 
- Project proposals should include more in-depth problem assessment and how the proposed activities will lead to solutions (theory of change), together with appropriate indicators. 
- The proposal and budgeting processes should be more closely linked.
- Capacity building should address overall organizational capacity needs, be based on a systematic process of assessment, and involve a variety of interventions. 
- Monitoring and evaluation needs to be strengthened, addressing changes for children and organizational capacity, as well as activities completed. 
- Exit strategies and plans for sustainability need to be discussed and implemented at an earlier stage. 
- Reinstitute the Partners’ Forums.

 Comments and follow-up from the organisation, if any
SC in Zimbabwe has integrated the learning and answers to most of the recommendation in their plan for 2013. A particular focus is set on capacity building, and strengthening the meeting places/forums with and between partners.